«

»

Russkie Reasoning

It is a common misconception here that those folks living outside the US cannot comprehend what it is like to be an American, or understand how we do things here. Along those lines, the inevitability of a declining America with other nations filling the vacuum, doing capitalism better and more efficiently than we do, beating us at our own game, is all difficult to digest.
A Russian journalist and contributor of Pravda would like us to think that black is white, that Russia is turning into the new America, the new land of opportunity and freedom, while America, saddled with the new Stalin incarnate, is doomed to follow in the footsteps of the Bolsheviks of their history with the resultant misery and suffering riding shotgun;

His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.

Russia still has a long way to go to become that Milton Friedman paradise he envisions, but the author’s finger on our pulse reveals an erratic heartbeat with no assurances of longevity. They still don’t do elections very well and comes in a close second to Afghanistan in governmental corruption (at least we don’t have troops there) but world markets, including many American companies, are dipping a toe into the Russian pool. For purposes of transparency (too bad that disappeared here long ago) they are removing themselves and their influences (to a degree) from public companies. Governmental officials cannot now remain on the boards of these companies.

Regarding taxes;

Russia has a uniform rate of tax on the income of individuals. As of 2012 tax in Russia is payable at the rate of 13% for an individual on most income. (non-residents 30%). Russian residents pay 9% on dividend income. (Deduction at source).
Non-residents pay 15% on dividend income.
Exemptions are granted to certain income earners.
The standard rate of Russia corporate profit tax in 2012 is 20%.
Companies pay 9% tax on dividend income.

Yep, they like many other ex communist countries figured out a long time ago that lowering the tax rate widens and increase the tax base. Why can’t the Democrats figure this out.

Russia is now a member of the World Trade Organization, a seal of approval for buck foreign bucks flowing in to Russian markets.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.
—-
“We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success.”- Vladimir Putin

Dang, they get it. A federal deficit at 1.4% of GDP, with it a projected surplus by 2015, an increased standard of living within the work force, an approximate 20% year over year growth of the export to import ratio, and an ever increasing instability in its currency (not silly QE manipulation allowed over there) the Russians have learned about the profit motive, and human nature.

Seismic shifts are occurring all around us.Has America reached it’s high water mark?

93 comments

No ping yet

  1. Thrill says:

    Has America reached it’s high water mark?

    Probably. The way we tax and spend is unsustainable and perfectly consistent with all great powers in decline throughout history. I don’t know how we can get Americans to understand that. Or if we even should try. Keep in mind that Russia had to go through the collapse and breakup of its empire twenty years ago to get back on track.

    Evil times.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Poosh says:

    Yeah but to be fair Russia assassinates its own citizens, including those who have fled to other countries…. I think the intelligent capitalist aspects are really just icing on a very nasty cake :(

    The sooner someone puts a bullet in Putin’s head the better. Thus to all tyrants.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Dave D says:

    What kills me is that the tax-n-spenders in power now have CONVINCED the populace that it’s all those nasty conservatives’s fault that the US is not as good as it can be. My (normally libertarian) son just informed me last weekend that he has read (and apparently believes) that all of bHo’s defecits are due MAINLY to Bush’s tax cuts/wars and less income from tax revenue, so it’s not really his fault. Man, are we fucked…….

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  4. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

      
  5. mrblume says:

    Yeah but to be fair Russia assassinates its own citizens, including those who have fled to other countries….

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah….

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  6. Thrill says:

    I assume he’s been ‘led astray’ by this graph?
    And yet the evidence shows……what exactly?

    The deficit is Obama’s “fault” if you put it in terms of “has done nothing but dramatically add on to it in four years with his wasted stimulus and failed recovery and has no real plan to seriously reduce improve the situation”.

    The study you cited even notes:

    Together, the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — nearly $330 billion in 2019 alone.

    So we get a whopping $1 trillion dollar added revenue from now until 2019 if we give Obama what he wants and let the Bush tax cuts expire. This doesn’t mean a whole lot when we’re running deficits of over a trillion dollars per year during that same time frame and the #1 budget items are welfare, Social Security, and health care.

    The primary cause of the deficit is the economic downturn, retirement of the Baby Boomers, and rising healthcare costs. The tax cuts are not driving this. We can’t tax our way out of this in any case.

    Full disclosure: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a left-wing Soros affiliate. Not worth taking seriously since it isn’t objective, but even they observed in that study that the onus is on Obama to propose some real solutions and that raising taxes is only a first step to stability.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Iconoclast says:

    I assume he’s been ‘led astray’ by this graph?

    Because if it’s on a graph from the Internet, it absolutely must be absolutely true…

    I see that Thrill has beaten me to it, but here are a couple more links to challenge the left-wing Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ cute little graph…

    The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth

    The Budget Debate in Pictures: A Look at CBO Projections and the Role that Bush-Era Tax and Spending Policies Play in the Deficit

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Seattle Outcast says:

    Makes me wonder why anyone bothers to deny that Obama is a communist. I mean, his advisers, mentors, associates, and much of his appointed staff are self-confessed communists, his policies are markedly communist in nature, and even Pravda calls him a communist.

    Why are people denying this basic fact about Obama? He’s a communist, and even says so in some of his previous public speakings. Exactly what is the issue not publicly admitting this – it’s not a secret…

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  9. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

      
  10. Seattle Outcast says:

    Probably because he meets no reasonable definition of a communist by any reasonable measure.

    What color is the sky on your planet?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Iconoclast says:

    “…all of bHo’s defecits are due MAINLY to Bush’s tax cuts/wars and less income from tax revenue, so it’s not really his fault”

    Even with what you and Iconoclast have provided, I still can’t see that statement is inaccurate.

    Perhaps because you simply don’t want to see it.

    From my first link:

    Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.

    From my second link (emphasis added):

    1) Tax revenues have fluctuated largely with the economy, dropping precipitously in the aftermath of the 2008 recession, but are projected to remain close to historical norms with or without expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012.

    2) Entitlement spending has roughly doubled in the last 40 years as a percentage of GDP and is projected to remain there through 2021, pushing total spending well above any historical precedent. Thus, the CBO projects deficits as far as the eye can see.

    Should we blame Bush (or rather, all that happened during his presidency) for this? In a sense, yes, but not for the reason the CBPP would have us believe; the role of Bush-era policies in the projected deficits is mainly on the spending side of the equation, not the tax side.

    What I don’t see is how it could be any clearer.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      
  13. pfluffy says:

    Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.

    Wow, I had no idea that Obama passed SS, Medicare and Medicaid in the last four years. I must have been confusing them with some other programs. Since I am so out of the loop, could you please provide me links to that? I wouldn’t know where to start on Google.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  14. CM says:

    Hey Seattle, I see your much-more-reliable unskewedpolls dude has a new website….
    http://www.barackofraudo.com/
    Hi-larious. Do you want me to have that porcupine and some lube sent over?

    Hot! Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10

      
  15. Miguelito says:

    Exemptions are granted to certain income earners.

    Hmm… “certain” ones eh? Like Putin’s buddies perhaps?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    Hmm… “certain” ones eh? Like Putin’s buddies perhaps?

    Mus have been talking about Geithner or Corazine.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  17. CM says:

    Or could just be EITCs.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  18. balthazar says:

    Why, WHY WHY WHY.

    Again WHY do you bother. Just tell him hes a fucking clueless tool and move on, that’s all his idiocy merits.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    Why, WHY WHY WHY.

    Again WHY do you bother. Just tell him hes a fucking clueless tool and move on, that’s all his idiocy merits.

    Sure is fun to read those sorts of comments when we were discussing polling before the election.

    Balthazar:

    you mean like CBS using a democrat +11 poll, when even in 2008 obama had at BEST a dem +6? That kind of skewing?

    He wont come NEAR a dem +6 this time around.

    Who’s the ‘fucking clueless tool” again?

    Seattle himself has left a little treasure-trove of gifts behind.
    Down the memory hole for both of you though I bet. It’s right back to projecting your hopelessness onto me.
    Too funny.

    Hot! Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

      
  20. Seattle Outcast says:

    Seattle himself has left a little treasure-trove of gifts behind.

    I’m sure to your puny little intellect it would appear that way….

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  21. CM says:

    I’m sure to your puny little intellect it would appear that way….

    I’m struggling to come up within something that could be lamer than that.
    Anyone?

    Anyway, on-topic, check out the drop in fed govt outlays in 2012 (even in raw terms, not just as a % of GDP). The deficit has gone from 10.1% of GDP in 2009 down to 7% in 2012.

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43698-Nov-MBR.pdf

    Not great, but at least it’s heading in the right direction, and relatively quickly.

    Hot! Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      
  22. Thrill says:

    The deficit has gone from 10.1% of GDP in 2009 down to 7% in 2012.

    But still a pretty far cry from the 3.2% of Bush’s last year in the White House. Or, better, the pre-TARP 2007 1.2%…

    I’m trying to figure out what this means:

    Revenues from all major sources increased in 2012.
    Corporate income taxes accounted for about 40 percent
    of the increase in total revenues, rising by $61 billion
    (or 34 percent) and increasing from 1.2 percent to
    1.6 percent of GDP. The growth in corporate receipts
    resulted largely from changes in tax rules in recent
    years, particularly those that dictate how quickly firms
    may deduct the cost of their investments in equipment.

    So basically, almost half of the increased revenues for 2012 are because the Obama Administration increased the time it will take before businesses can write-off investments in new equipment? Is CBO counting that even if it’s going to be refunded later?

    Sadly also, the reduction in the deficit from 2011 to 2012 ($207 billion) doesn’t even equal the net interest payments on the public debt ($258 billion). We’re not even treading water, honestly. When you consider that the revenue gains appear to be an IRS accounting trick, the reduction in the deficit is probably closer to $150 billion.

    Not going to cut it. Literally.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Poosh says:

    Who’s the ‘fucking clueless tool” again?

    You CM. Always you.

    That being said, and it’s always nice to point out Obama created new deficits spending + a TAX CUT does not cause a deficit, retard, it’s good to put the blame, correctly, on entire generations of americans and voters – and the structure itself. When the state is structurally set up to create deficits the real blame is on the country as a whole across a certain space of time. Bush adding to the problems, and Obama, causing even more problems and actively moving to hinder recovery is really, in the scheme of things, a cherry on the top of a bloated, short-sighted pie.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  24. Seattle Outcast says:

    I’m struggling to come up within something that could be lamer than that.

    As has been pointed out repeatedly, you’re something of an idiot. And a troll, a revisionist, and illiterate in history, economics, data analysis, etc. Do you really think I have any interest in “debating” you, particularly while I’m on vacation and my opinion of you is lower than that of raw sewage?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  25. CM says:

    But still a pretty far cry from the 3.2% of Bush’s last year in the White House. Or, better, the pre-TARP 2007 1.2%…

    Absolutely. But then it was a catastrophic financial crisis.

    Not going to cut it. Literally.

    Not at all.

    You CM. Always you.

    LMAO. You back talking to me again now?
    You two are hilarious. Worth the price of admission alone.
    Were you trying to outdo Seattle’s lamest of lame comebacks? It’s not a bad effort I grant you.

    That being said, and it’s always nice to point out Obama created new deficits spending + a TAX CUT does not cause a deficit, retard,

    Of the deficit, what contribution did Obama make with new spending? Serious question.

    We can say that nothing by itself causes a deficit. A tax cut obviously can assist in a deficit, much like other single factors.

    it’s good to put the blame, correctly, on entire generations of americans and voters – and the structure itself. When the state is structurally set up to create deficits the real blame is on the country as a whole across a certain space of time.

    Yeah that’s pretty much just what I said.

    Bush adding to the problems, and Obama, causing even more problems and actively moving to hinder recovery is really, in the scheme of things, a cherry on the top of a bloated, short-sighted pie.

    I’ll go with all the reputable economists who largely agree that the stimulus was beneficial. Rather than those who would have rather let everything fail, leading to millions more being unemployed, and then believing that magic would have led to an instant boom. That’s just ideological fantasy land.

    As has been pointed out repeatedly, you’re something of an idiot.

    Strangely it’s only much larger idiots that point it out. Repeatedly.
    What a complete lack of surprise that you won’t even admit all your bluster about the polling was complete horseshit. I mean it was blatantly obvious at the time, but you kept doubling down, kept avoiding any explanation as to why, kept the macho personal insult thing going at full volume, and set yourself up. And yet here we are, and there’s no sense that you even remember it.

    And a troll, a revisionist, and illiterate in history, economics, data analysis, etc.

    Surely it’s trolling to keep making such claims but never actually being able to show any evidence? Where are all these mystery threads? Did the internet eat them?
    The truth is – every single time we get to the crunch, you run away crying like a little girl. Giving you an example (your unskewedpolls.com nonsense) and throwing it back in your face just makes your head explode doesn’t it? Funny how you never have any examples of your own. You and Poosh keep pretending they exist, but can never point to any. Strange.

    Do you really think I have any interest in “debating” you, particularly while I’m on vacation and my opinion of you is lower than that of raw sewage?

    It’s very obvious that you have no interest in questioning or challenging any part of any of your beliefs. I think they’re so ingrained and rigid and you’ve reached an age where you just don’t give a shit. You’re now mostly just a grumpy old man. Almost every post you make is bitching about something. You now just reliably pretend to ‘win’ by saying a variation of “you don’t know what you’re talking about”, even though you provide no evidence of that at all, and then saying you don’t like me. Boo hoo hoo. Election polling and climate change are just two of the most glaring examples. That hilarious Ezra Klein ‘exchange’ where repmom effectively told you to stop being such a dick and provide some substance is another.
    I would tell you to give it a rest but it’s clearly beyond you.

    Hot! Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

      
  26. Iconoclast says:

    Again, we’re dealing with this claim, which is apparently just outrageous:

    “…all of bHo’s defecits are due MAINLY to Bush’s tax cuts/wars and less income from tax revenue, so it’s not really his fault”

    Hmm, I thought I was dealing with your graph, you know, the one created by the George-Soros-funded “Center on Budget and Policy Priorities” and posted on the left-wing “Talking Points Memo” web site? That graph clearly implies that “Bush-era Tax Cuts” are the primary contributor to projected deficits. That is the claim I am challenging.

    Perhaps when I observed that “Thrill beat me to it”, you took that to imply that I was trying to assign blame. No, I am simply challenging the notion that “Bush-era Tax Cuts” are the primary contributor to projected deficits. What Thrill beat me to was pointing out that your graph is from solidly left-wing sources.

    Of course, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that the George-Soros-funded “Center on Budget and Policy Priorities” recommends letting all of those Bush-era tax cuts expire, and recommends against cutting spending. But the main point here is, again, that conservatism is being marginalizes and demonized. Not that Bush was conservative, he only had an “R” after his name on the ballot, but he was very much a liberal when it came to government expansion and spending. One of his characteristics that garnered some of the greatest criticism from actual conservatives was his apparently genetic inability to use a veto pen. But then again, it was all those RINOs in Congress that created all those pork-laden spending bills in the first place. This is one of the major factors in the 2006 “thumping” that inflicted Nancy Pelosi on us, along with a Democrat Congress.

    It goes without saying that the official narrative for the remainder of the Obama era shalt be, “It’s Not Really Obama’s Fault; It’s Really Bush’s Fault”. Your graph solidly indicates as much. When Obama finally leaves office in January 2017 and this nightmare of an Administration comes to a close, we will still be circling the drain as a nation, and it will still be Bush’s fault.

    I don’t know whether I feel like Henry Rearden or Winston Smith…

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  27. AlexInCT says:

    The fact that so many people are trying to make the ridiculous argument that the problem we have is one where our government has too little revenue, instead of the fact that it spends to much, is jaunting to me. Seriously? You think if I told my credit card company that the problem I have is my employer isn’t paying me as much as I want to spend, so go take it up with them, that they would buy it? Seriously!!!! Do you think they should do anything but cut up my credit card and tell me to take a long walk of a short pier?

    Why the fuck do these stupid nanny-staters think that they can make a similar argument, and blame the fact that they have never seen a government entitlement program they don’t feel should be wasting more tax payer dollars, on them not confiscating more wealth from the productive? How fucking stupid/evil/insane do you have to be to try and argue that spending more than the god damned oodles of money you confiscate – they took $2.47 trillion dollars this year but then spent $3.6 trillion – isn’t the problem, but tax cuts that let people keep more of their money is the problem? How fucking despicable do you have to be to make believe this nonsense has merit?

    This argument is accepted as valid because there are a whole lot of takers that are all ready to believe any and all lies, if it allows crooks to steal more from the productive to buy their votes. Fuck, collectivist nanny-staters are despicable and evil. And I am sorry to insult evil and dispicable people by comparing them to these fucks.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Poosh says:

    I think it’s obvious Right Thinking is invested with Trolls, and is a problem that has got worse over the time. It makes me feel sad. A lot of veteran posters don’t seem to come here these days.

    Hot! Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

      
  29. CM says:

    It goes without saying that the official narrative for the remainder of the Obama era shalt be, “It’s Not Really Obama’s Fault; It’s Really Bush’s Fault”. Your graph solidly indicates as much. When Obama finally leaves office in January 2017 and this nightmare of an Administration comes to a close, we will still be circling the drain as a nation, and it will still be Bush’s fault.

    Well I for one don’t subscribe to “it’s Bush’s fault”. But I do acknowledge that a President’s deficit is almost entirely the result of what happened before he/she arrived in office. That’s primarily what that graph demonstrates.

    The deficit they leave for the next President and the one after that is definitely more about what they did in office. So yeah, this term is most definitely the one that shapes Obama’s legacy. The first four years with the financial meltdown on top of an existing deficit left Obama with few options (I don’t see ‘letting everyting fail and let everyone be unemployed so they’ll be a huge boom” fantasy as a legitimate option).

    Anyway, seems obvious to me that spending needs to be slashed. It also seems that almost nobody disagrees, it’s a just a matter of what gets slashed and when.

    BTW here is the updated “Center on Budget and Policy Priorities” analysis in October, following the criticism.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  30. CM says:

    The authors:

    Ruffing spent 25 years at the Congressional Budget Office, where she analyzed a wide range of topics including interest costs and federal debt, federal pay, immigration, and Social Security. Upon her departure, the Congressional Record praised her as a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly to advance the legislative process and whose analyses displayed the best characteristics of CBO reports: impartiality, clarity, and comprehensiveness.

    http://www.cbpp.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=view&id=136

    He was a Deputy Democratic Staff Director at the Senate Budget Committee from 2001 through 2004. He also served as Chief of the Projections Unit in the Budget Analysis Division of the Congressional Budget Office for 7 years, where he coordinated CBO’s projections of expenditures, surpluses, and deficits.

    He began working on federal budget issues as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in the early 1980s, following two years as an assistant professor in the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management and the Political Science Department at Northwestern University.

    He then spent eight years working in various positions for the Committee on the Budget and Committee on Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. Just prior to going to CBO, he was an Assistant Director for Budget Issues at the General Accounting Office.

    http://www.cbpp.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23

    Clearly both are extremely well placed to be assessing/analysing CBO data and projections.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  31. Thrill says:

    Clearly both are extremely well placed to be assessing/analysing CBO data and projections.

    Any fool with a business administration degree (such as me) can do that. I don’t question their qualifications, just their bias.

    Why focus on the tax cuts instead of welfare as to why the deficit is so big? They favor welfare and hate the Bush tax cuts, that’s why.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  32. CM says:

    When you suggest they should instead concentrate on welfare, what do you actually mean? That they should look at what changes in welfare entitlements did to blow out the deficit during this period? In the last part of the link they do seem to discuss how they looked at the effects of all the changes in entitlements during the relevant period – under the headings “What About the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit?” and “What Did the Bush-Era Tax Cuts Cost Through 2011?”.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  33. Miguelito says:

    They favor welfare and hate the Bush tax cuts, that’s why.

    Counting taking less of the people’s money as a “cost” is completely fallacious “logic” in the first place.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  34. Iconoclast says:

    I do acknowledge that a President’s deficit is almost entirely the result of what happened before he/she arrived in office. That’s primarily what that graph demonstrates.

    Well, no, the graph doesn’t really “demonstrate” anything, except the flagrant biases of those who created it. What the graph is trying to claim is that as far out as 2019, a full two years after Obama leaves office, we will still be in deficit spending, the major contributor to those deficits will still be the Bush-era tax cuts, and that virtually nothing Obama has done or will do will have any impact on that deficit, except perhaps making it smaller, of course. In other words, the mess Obama leaves to his successor WILL. STILL. BE. BUSH’S. FAULT.

    And of course, you have no problem with such conclusions, because these guys are correctly credentialed — they’re liberals, after all, working for a left-leaning think-tank. No need to question their conclusions at all…

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Iconoclast says:

    …these guys are correctly credentialed — they’re liberals, after all, working for a left-leaning think-tank.

    Said think-tank being funded by none other than George Soros, no less…

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Poosh says:

    Said think-tank being funded by none other than George Soros, no less…

    Flawless Victory

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      
  37. CM says:

    Funny how I’ve not yet encountered a single equivalent complaint about any right-wing sources. I’ll make sure to point it out in future. They appear often. Are they also ‘flawless victories” Poosh? Or are you still doing the super-dick uber-cowardly move of refusing to engage but still talking to your audience?

    Nevertheless…..Iconoclast what would you change in (or add to) the graph to accommodate the additional spending added by Obama? I.e. his ‘Bush tax cuts’ equivalent.

    I said I had no complaint acknowledging that a President’s deficits are almost entirely not of their own making. That’s quite different. And rather than seeing “no need to question their conclusions at all” I specifically requested questioning of the graph (i.e. their conclusions).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  38. Thrill says:

    I answered their conclusions and then bashed the source. I challenge the objectivity of these Soros-linked studies simply because they’re agenda-driven. These groups like this one and Reprieve and Lancet throw these studies out under official-sounding names to bolster the credibility of liberals who base their arguments on them. Which you do.

    Their biases should be noted AND they should be discredited by challenging their findings, as I do. Additionally, we should question all sources. I even questioned the CBO on another thread for suggesting that we’d have 4.3% economic growth from 2014 to 2017. Here on this thread, I asked why the CBPP is relying on fishy accounting practices from the IRS.

    In the last part of the link they do seem to discuss how they looked at the effects of all the changes in entitlements during the relevant period – under the headings “What About the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit?” and “What Did the Bush-Era Tax Cuts Cost Through 2011?”.

    But why did CBPP single out the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? Wasn’t that a Bush initiative? Why, yes, they note that it was. We’re not being bankrupted by that program. We’re not being bankrupted by the tax cuts either. They examined the data to find out how much Bush’s policies impacted the deficit. You can calculate the debt with no Bush tax-cuts and no drug plan and find that we still have a massive deficit because of the major entitlement programs that the Democrats will not touch. The goal here was pretty clear: damn Bush; yay, Obama.

    The study you cited, even without the Soros and left-leaning connections, relies on unrealistic data and projections as I’ve pointed out. You don’t really expect us to take every study you link to as fact just because it has an official-sounding name, do you?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  39. AlexInCT says:

    Funny how I’ve not yet encountered a single equivalent complaint about any right-wing sources. I’ll make sure to point it out in future.

    If a right wing think tank tries to do something as stupid as claim that the problem with deficits is one of not fleecing the people hard enough, versus one of spending too much, I will be right there with you CM.

    The problem here isn’t the source of the critique per se, CM, but the ludicrous idea that tax cuts is why a bloated, inefficient, and wasteful government that provides “services” to the lowest common denominator, under the guise of trying to help the disadvantaged, but really is just protecting and expanding vote buying schemes for the left, is on pace to implode due to that unsustainable spending.

    Manipulating any data to pretend this argument has value is the height of chicanery, and disgusting. And this is what that graph you link to is all about.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  40. Dave D says:

    I keep seeing this, so let me get this straight: Revenues went UP after the Bush tax cuts, right? IS that a myth or is it true? I have seen umpteen spreadsheets showing that the ONLY years that revenue went down after 2003 are 2010/11 due to recession. Yet CM and his liberal buddies drone ENDLESSLY about the effect of those tax cuts on revenue. What they really mean is that they could have had MORE money to waste (incorrectly assuming that higher tax rates give more revenue) on political cronyism and buying votes. Am I wrong on this? Why is this still a valid argument?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  41. balthazar says:

    Am I wrong on this? Why is this still a valid argument?

    No, you are not wrong.

    Its only a valid argument if you are a clueless troll, that loves being not only clueless, but a huge tool as well.

    Revenues went UP after the cuts, FACT.

    Lefties bitching that at caused a deficit are idiots, since if the tax cuts were not put in place, revenues most likely would have not gone up as much(or at all) as they did in the first place.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  42. richtaylor365 says:

    Am I wrong on this? Why is this still a valid argument?

    I will repost a link (for about the elevendyth time since the usual suspects always forget the next day) about what the Bush tax cuts did and did not do. Bookmark it because this will come up again.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  43. Poosh says:

    This may surprise you but Obama himself, I am quite sure about this as I recall seeing the video and feeling my jaw drop, and I invite everyone to find it, Obama himself acknowledged as a fact that raising taxes on the rich (capital gains in this instance) lowers revenue. And he said he didn’t care, it’s about fairness (watered down marxism in other words). He said one should stop borrowing and, instead, take from the rich, to pay for infrastructure etc.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  44. Dave D says:

    Then why do they keep droning on about it? They obviously don’t BELEIVE what Heritage says (as well as many others I have seen), and/or they don’t understand that revenues can go up with tax cuts and therefore ignore it on that basis? You can’t have a rational discussion about taxes without acknowledging that, historically, taxes go UP when rates go down (to a certain extent). You CAN, OTOH, ignore this and also ignore the fact that spending has increased MORE than any growth in revenue, exacerbating this recession. It makes a wonderul, and apparently believable, class-warfare tool for the masses.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  45. Dave D says:

    Poosh: The ONLY explanation for that belief is that the class warfare cudgel WORKS!

    Also, what he apparently fails to recognize is what the rich DO in response to higher tax rates. Fantasyland……….

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  46. richtaylor365 says:

    and I invite everyone to find it,

    Done

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  47. Poosh says:

    Hah, I linked to the unedited video, Rich, just to be fair, but the video you linked to is entirely correct so it was kinda pointless me finding the unedited video ha ha.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. Biggie G says:

    I heard this on a radio show a few weeks ago and I keep it in mind when I read the comments here. It makes this a lot easier.

    The first duty of a Progressive is to defend Progressivism at all costs.

    They’re not trolling. They can’t help it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  49. Dave D says:

    Biggie:

    And the FIRST duty when becoming a TRUE liberal….er…..progressive (that still cracks me up!) is to denounce ANY OTHER solution other than progressivism as evil/wrong/stupid/unfair……..

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  50. CM says:

    I answered their conclusions and then bashed the source. I challenge the objectivity of these Soros-linked studies simply because they’re agenda-driven. These groups like this one and Reprieve and Lancet throw these studies out under official-sounding names to bolster the credibility of liberals who base their arguments on them. Which you do.

    I was responding specifically to Iconoclast and Poosh’s comments. And remember, this started because Dave said his son was getting his head filled with rubbish. I thought it sounded like that graph, which I had not seen debunked before, so I enquired as to whether it WAS possibly the source of his son’s opinion. It’s not like I just randomly arrived with the graph and said “This is unbeatable evidence”
    I’m mostly asking questions Thrill (even if some of them don’t have question marks). I’m more than happy for people to answer them. I would PREFER people to challenge the objectivity of agenda-driven pieces. It would be great to see more of it here (it could only enchance credibility).

    The Lancet is one of the world’s best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals. Are you referring to something else with the same name?

    Their biases should be noted AND they should be discredited by challenging their findings, as I do.

    Yep, cool.

    Additionally, we should question all sources. I even questioned the CBO on another thread for suggesting that we’d have 4.3% economic growth from 2014 to 2017. Here on this thread, I asked why the CBPP is relying on fishy accounting practices from the IRS.

    Oh sure, there are a million examples of non-right-wing-agenda-driving sources being questioned on this blog.

    But why did CBPP single out the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit?

    Presumably because it’s been part of the discussion, rightly or wrongly. This is an update, some of which is clearly in response to comments about the initial analysis.

    Wasn’t that a Bush initiative? Why, yes, they note that it was. We’re not being bankrupted by that program. We’re not being bankrupted by the tax cuts either.

    As I said previously, you’re not being bankrupted by any program (it’s similar to what Hal keeps saying – just because one measure doesn’t solve the deficit problem, it doesn’t mean you dismiss it).

    They examined the data to find out how much Bush’s policies impacted the deficit. You can calculate the debt with no Bush tax-cuts and no drug plan and find that we still have a massive deficit because of the major entitlement programs that the Democrats will not touch. The goal here was pretty clear: damn Bush; yay, Obama.

    I’d like to see that alternative chart then – that would be a killer argument. The one that shows the growth from zero deficit to the current deficit, indicating which entitlement policy changes introduced which share of the deficit.
    If Bush didn’t touch entitlement programs, then on that score he’s no better and no worse than Obama. You either slam both or neither. However starting expensive wars and significant tax cuts are obviously policy decisions with major financial ramifications.

    If a right wing think tank tries to do something as stupid as claim that the problem with deficits is one of not fleecing the people hard enough, versus one of spending too much, I will be right there with you CM.

    I.e. – “if a right wing think tank doesn’t push the right-wing-narrative, I’ll criticise it”.
    Yeah, not really what I meant Alex!
    The problem here isn’t the source of the critique per se, CM, but the ludicrous idea that tax cuts is why a bloated, inefficient, and wasteful government that provides “services” to the lowest common denominator, under the guise of trying to help the disadvantaged, but really is just protecting and expanding vote buying schemes for the left, is on pace to implode due to that unsustainable spending.

    The problem here isn’t the source of the critique per se, CM, but the ludicrous idea that tax cuts is why a bloated, inefficient, and wasteful government that provides “services” to the lowest common denominator, under the guise of trying to help the disadvantaged, but really is just protecting and expanding vote buying schemes for the left, is on pace to implode due to that unsustainable spending.

    That’s not the ‘idea’. The idea is that the tax cuts played a big part in reducing revenue that would have otherwise been collected, on top of additional spending on wars, and dealing with the financial crisis. That government has become bloated, inefficient and wasteful is certainly a valid discussion. Who is arguing against that? Part of their analysis is saying that spending is a major factor. Again, who is pretending it isn’t here?

    I keep seeing this, so let me get this straight: Revenues went UP after the Bush tax cuts, right? IS that a myth or is it true? I have seen umpteen spreadsheets showing that the ONLY years that revenue went down after 2003 are 2010/11 due to recession. Yet CM and his liberal buddies drone ENDLESSLY about the effect of those tax cuts on revenue.

    You must be talking about “my buddies” as I most certainly haven’t.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  51. CM says:

    So if the Bush tax cuts didn’t add to the deficit, how is the CBO able to analyse changes from their 2001 10-year revenue projections, and apportion lost revenue as a result of EGTRRA, JGTRRA, WFTRA, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, ARRA, the Tax Act of 2010, and ‘Other’ legislative changes?

    The table divides changes to those baseline projections between those that stemmed from legislative actions and those that resulted from factors related to economic or other, technical
    assumptions. Such categorizations were done each year as new projections were prepared—no
    new analysis has been done to compile this table. Thus, the revisions attributable to legislation
    represent CBO’s estimates of costs or savings associated with new laws relative to the baseline
    projections that were current at the time of enactment. The effects of legislation may have
    turned out to be different from the original estimates either because those baseline projections
    were off-target or because the results of the legislation deviated from what CBO anticipated, but
    no adjustments have been made in this table to those initial assessments of the legislation.

    Is that sufficient to say it’s essentially worthless?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  52. CM says:

    PolitiFact has previously examined assertions that tax cuts increase revenues by stimulating economic growth. We found that the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.

    “There’s no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth,” said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship.”

    Our colleagues at FactCheck.org came to a similar conclusion.

    Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office reported in March, “Relative to the size of the economy, federal revenues are currently at their lowest level in 60 years.”

    “There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now),” said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts — liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question.”

    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/apr/29/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucinich-says-bush-tax-cuts-caused-subs/

    Also:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/09/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-raising-taxes-lowers-tax-revenues/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  53. AlexInCT says:

    So if the Bush tax cuts didn’t add to the deficit, how is the CBO able to analyse changes from their 2001 10-year revenue projections, and apportion lost revenue as a result of EGTRRA, JGTRRA, WFTRA, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, ARRA, the Tax Act of 2010, and ‘Other’ legislative changes?

    CM you are a moron. Let me break it down for you. Many here have given you link after link that clearly show that the tax cuts not only prevented a post 9-11 recession, but ended up producing more REVENUE for the government to collect.

    Every time they have cut taxes in our history, that cut has spurred growth and investment, and that has resulted in MORE revenue. Kennedy did it, Reagan did it, and even Bush did it. Cuts encourage people that want more money – oh the greedy mofos! – to invest, and by default, because they do so and the economy booms, that produces more income for government even at the reduced tax rates. Conversely, whenever they have raised taxes this has resulted in economic slow downs as investors pull out to avoid the hammer. Eventually the higher rates simply don’t return even what they where collecting at the lower rate, because nobody wants to work hard and take risk only to let government confiscate the lion share, as this post I made CLEARLY illustrates.

    You tax less, people invest economic growth ensues, everyone makes more money, including the damned leeches in government., and things go good. Raise taxes, especially while making them punitive – not in your liberal mind but to the people that pay them – and you will get people pulling out their cash and an economic slowdown as well as the risk of reduced revenue for the government. It is not a difficult concept to grasp if you want to follow logic and not Marxist bullshit class envy politically driven nonsense.

    The thing is that I believe you understand this very well, you simply DO NOT want to acknowledge it, because then it undermines your premise that the problem is the tax cuts instead of the disproportionate growth in spending. If you can blame tax breaks for too much spending, then your envious mind can let you not just justify more confiscation (increased rates), but more spending too.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  54. Thrill says:

    I would PREFER people to challenge the objectivity of agenda-driven pieces. It would be great to see more of it here (it could only enchance credibility).

    Okay. As long as we’re on the same page.

    The Lancet is one of the world’s best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals. Are you referring to something else with the same name?

    I am specifically speaking of the Lancet that published a ridiculous study funded by Soros that claimed that the Iraq War killed 650,000 Iraqis from 2003 to late 2006.

    I’d like to see that alternative chart then – that would be a killer argument

    I have no chart. I have arithmetic. Take the Bush tax cuts and and Medicare D out of the equation as if they’d never been passed and we would still have an unsustainable deficit. 2+2=4 doesn’t need a chart. It just is.

    If Bush didn’t touch entitlement programs, then on that score he’s no better and no worse than Obama. You either slam both or neither.

    Oh, you’ll find no shortage of criticisms of Bush for the national debt in the RTFLC archives, I assure you. Even from me. I defended the man on plenty of things, but not that. Bush, at least, had a growing economy during his tenure and could at least claim that growth was sustaining the entitlements. Obama can’t. Perhaps you will take the opportunity now to slam Obama for renewing those tax cuts, just to be fair?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  55. CM says:

    CM you are a moron. Let me break it down for you. Many here have given you link after link that clearly show that the tax cuts not only prevented a post 9-11 recession, but ended up producing more REVENUE for the government to collect.

    Whether I’m a moron or not is irrelevant:

    “There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now),” said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts — liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question.”

    Why are you so sure that your opinion is ‘fact’ when there “is no real dispute among economists” about the opposite being the case?

    Every time they have cut taxes in our history, that cut has spurred growth and investment, and that has resulted in MORE revenue.

    More revuenue that what? More revenue than previously is what is expected even if tax rates were maintained. The relevant comparison is not tax revenue against previous revenues, but against what would have been expected had the tax rate been maintained.

    The thing is that I believe you understand this very well, you simply DO NOT want to acknowledge it, because then it undermines your premise that the problem is the tax cuts instead of the disproportionate growth in spending.

    I understand that’s what you believe. I’m asking why the actual economists don’t agree. Why the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers don’t agree.
    Why isn’t that acknowledged?
    “My” premise isn’t anything. I’ve already said a number of times in this very thread that spending is a key component. Did you only selectively read my comments?

    If you can blame tax breaks for too much spending, then your envious mind can let you not just justify more confiscation (increased rates), but more spending too.

    See, now you’re right off the reservation. But because only I call you out on this shit, you won’t believe me. Just ridiculous.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  56. Miguelito says:

    Poosh: The ONLY explanation for that belief is that the class warfare cudgel WORKS!

    Unfortunately this last election in the US would seem to show that it actually does at least help.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  57. CM says:

    I am specifically speaking of the Lancet that published a ridiculous study funded by Soros that claimed that the Iraq War killed 650,000 Iraqis from 2003 to late 2006.

    Partly funded, partly through the process, and the researchers and authors were unaware. Soros had nothing whatsoever to do with the origination, conduct, or results of the survey, and was apparently likely to be unaware of any involvement.
    We better set aside anything that the Koch brothers (among others) have ever funded then.

    Anyway, I think the reporting of two heavily critiqued studies, resulting in criticism and counter-criticism over errors, hardly makes The Lancet “a group” which “throws out studies” under their “official-sounding name” in order “to bolster the credibility of liberals who base their arguments on them”. That seems quite the stretch, irrespective of the validity of the criticism about methods etc.

    I have no chart. I have arithmetic. Take the Bush tax cuts and and Medicare D out of the equation as if they’d never been passed and we would still have an unsustainable deficit. 2+2=4 doesn’t need a chart. It just is.

    Well that’s debatable – it depends on what would have happened without the tax cuts (the mainstream non-partisan economists seem to all be on the same page that the tax cuts significantly hurt govt revenue). But ok, leaving those aside, where did the deficit come from? What actions were taken that turned a surplus into a massive deficit in such a short space of time?

    Oh, you’ll find no shortage of criticisms of Bush for the national debt in the RTFLC archives, I assure you. Even from me. I defended the man on plenty of things, but not that. Bush, at least, had a growing economy during his tenure and could at least claim that growth was sustaining the entitlements. Obama can’t. Perhaps you will take the opportunity now to slam Obama for renewing those tax cuts, just to be fair?

    I have no reason to doubt past criticism from you and others of Bush spending too much (although I’m sure plenty of people voted for him in 2004 anyway, on the basis that he was the Republican candidate – a problem we all have). That’s not what I’m talking about – I’m saying that on this specific part of the issue, blame can hardly be separated. Neither did anything significant to scale back spending.
    I’m not going to slam a President for not scaling back on entitlements at the peak of a colossal financial crisis and a time of high unemployment. I like the Keynesian idea of cutting back during a boom, to enable yourself to soften the impact of a recession. People don’t want to cut down govt spending during a boom but to me it just makes sense. But don’t lower taxes (you don’t need to if the economy is booming) – use the money to pay off debt.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  58. CM says:

    Unfortunately this last election in the US would seem to show that it actually does at least help.

    Riiiiiiiiiiight, because “47%” wasn’t class warfare at all……;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  59. Thrill says:

    But ok, leaving those aside, where did the deficit come from?

    Simply put: The US government spends more money than it takes in taxes (duh, right). It’s a combination of the New Deal, Great Society, Bush-era entitlements, decreased tax revenues from the economic downturn, and other causes.

    What actions were taken that turned a surplus into a massive deficit in such a short space of time?

    The Clinton-era surplus had a lot of reasons. A bubble economy that had created incredibly high employment with all the tax revenue that goes with it, along with serious welfare reform (which Obama’s HHS is trying to undo), and the “peace dividend” of reduced military spending.

    Bush came into office with a recession already beginning thanks to the tech-bubble burst. He got the tax cuts passed, and then came 9/11 with the associated wars. He made the situation worse with Medicare Part D (and I can show you where plenty of conservatives bitched about this, including Rush Limbaugh). And then the Boomers started retiring putting greater strain on an already-failing Social Security system that the Democrats in Congress refused to address. Oh, yes, and medical costs continued soaring as the Democrats resisted all attempts at tort reform.

    We wrap up the Bush term with TARP and begin Obama’s with a failed, massive stimulus. The resulting limp-dick economy has worsened the deficit and nothing Obama knows how to do is reversing it.

    The total debt of the government (not counting liabilities) is over $16 trillion. That’s close to the goods and services we produce (annual GDP). You could tax us at 100% and not quite pay it all off.

    The Washington Post Fact Checker estimates that the Bush tax cuts cost us $1.3 trillion in lost revenue, right? Call me crazy, but I’m sure that 1.3 is a lot less than 16.

    Obama said it was double that, but 3 is also much, much less than 16, isn’t it?

    So the causes of the deficit were multiple and what I think it amounts to is this: The American people are idiots for awarding themselves ever larger entitlements and refusing to pay sufficient taxes to support them. We have to do one or the other. Obama is deceptively trying to claim that taxing “the rich” more is going to be enough to pay for the entitlements that the 47% need to have. It’s not enough. You and I both know it, CM.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  60. Miguelito says:

    Riiiiiiiiiiight, because “47%” wasn’t class warfare at all……;-)

    Oh I’m not saying both sides don’t do at least some. But the democrats in this country are masters at turning everything into either class, sex, race, whatever warfare when it suits them.

    Romney wasn’t even going after class per se in those comments. He was essentially saying (and I think he was pretty much right) that there is a large contingent of people in this country that is so dependent on gov’t to live anymore, that there was no point in trying to sway them to vote for him and for change to the systems they’re dependent on. Really, the act of making those people dependent on the gov’t in the first place is the real class warfare.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  61. Miguelito says:

    Bush-era entitlements

    And yes.. Bush sucked as far as thinking fiscally goes. His kind that wants big gov’t but conservative social policies is a big part of what’s killing the GOP today.

    Rich’s link had a specific chart in it that really summarized what was wrong with Bush’s own spend and tax less policies in a pretty concise way. That article was written back in 2007 before we really slammed our foot down on the accelerator towards insolvency too.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  62. CM says:

    ….We wrap up the Bush term with TARP ….

    Fair enough to that, and everything before it.

    ….and begin Obama’s with a failed, massive stimulus.

    How was it a failure and ‘massive’ by what measure? Again this is where you guys deviate markedly from mainstream economists.

    The resulting limp-dick economy has worsened the deficit and nothing Obama knows how to do is reversing it.

    Again, which economists are surprised at the sluggish recovery? This was a massive financial meltdown. I’m not sure recovery within 4 years (not mention recovery without stimulus) is even remotely realistic.
    Perhaps if the Romney had unveiled his magic plans to reverse it he would have won the election.

    The total debt of the government (not counting liabilities) is over $16 trillion. That’s close to the goods and services we produce (annual GDP). You could tax us at 100% and not quite pay it all off.

    Right but nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Or even remotely close to the levels of taxation that Republicans used to live with, and elect Presidents on.

    The Washington Post Fact Checker estimates that the Bush tax cuts cost us $1.3 trillion in lost revenue, right? Call me crazy, but I’m sure that 1.3 is a lot less than 16.

    You’re not crazy. 1.3 is way less than 16.
    Who has suggested that $16 trillion has been lost to Bush’s tax cuts?

    Obama said it was double that, but 3 is also much, much less than 16, isn’t it?

    Yes. But again, which nutjob is claiming the whole 16?

    So the causes of the deficit were multiple

    Yes, I think all reasonable people would agree.

    and what I think it amounts to is this: The American people are idiots for awarding themselves ever larger entitlements and refusing to pay sufficient taxes to support them. We have to do one or the other. Obama is deceptively trying to claim that taxing “the rich” more is going to be enough to pay for the entitlements that the 47% need to have. It’s not enough. You and I both know it, CM.

    I do agree.
    It’s vastly complex. Even if people can agree on what an “entitlement” is (when Obama famously spoke about the rich paying more towards infrastruture, was he talking about ‘entitlements’?), there are a million variables. And although I have no problem with a government spending more than it takes in during a financial crisis (because that’s part of the reason govt exists), the flipside is that the hard work of paying for that needs to happen in the good times.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  63. Thrill says:

    How was it a failure and ‘massive’ by what measure?

    This.

    And the term “massive” is fair. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would bring in about the same amount over a decade, right? If that amount is massive, so was the stimulus!

    I do agree.

    Good enough then. America has to decide what it wants to be. If socialist, then it must pay socialist tax rates. I see little evidence that the American people who just re-elected Obama want to part with their entitlements so…

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  64. CM says:

    Oh I’m not saying both sides don’t do at least some. But the democrats in this country are masters at turning everything into either class, sex, race, whatever warfare when it suits them.

    You’re in a far better position to judge than I am. But, from here, I do see plenty of it from the right. And, really, any proposed changes to anything can be viewed as ‘warfare’ if you’re willing to do so.

    Romney wasn’t even going after class per se in those comments. He was essentially saying (and I think he was pretty much right) that there is a large contingent of people in this country that is so dependent on gov’t to live anymore, that there was no point in trying to sway them to vote for him and for change to the systems they’re dependent on.

    Is that ‘contingent’ not effectively a ‘class’? What is a ‘class’ anyway?
    If your interpretation is correct, Romney is effectively saying the argument is unwinnable so there’s no point in trying. Whereas I think many people would rather continue the argument, but perhaps tweak it and update and make it appear more relevant to more people.

    Really, the act of making those people dependent on the gov’t in the first place is the real class warfare.

    Major area of discussion/argument that one. I certainly don’t see it that way. In my view a very small minority (a few percent at most) are “made dependent on the government”. Low unemployment during boom times is testament to that (unemployment gets down to not that much more than a ‘structural’ level). And of course ‘entitlements’ include the EITCs, which enable more people to work more jobs that would otherwise result in a lower standard of living. Or they mean business owners get more value for their buck. EITCs (essentially what Romney used as his measure of people that take responsibility for their lives and see themselves as victims) in no way makes people dependent on goverment – it simply means they can work jobs that don’t pay very well and still live ok.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  65. CM says:

    This.

    Doesn’t that show the projection made before anyone realised how bad this thing actually was? That’s usually what’s bandied about. Looks like it. If so, it’s not very fair. It’s also from a biased source ;-)
    I’d prefer to look at recent assessments made by non-partisan (or at least a wide selection of) economists to get an objective view of what the stimulus did. From what I’ve seen, there’s decent agreement.

    Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would bring in about the same amount over a decade, right? If that amount is massive, so was the stimulus!

    Slightly different context. The stimulus was much less of a policy decision – it was the only real option (unless you dismiss mainstream economics). The stimulus was also a mix of spending and less revenue (Obama’s was 1/3 tax cuts as that’s what the GOP would agree to).

    Good enough then. America has to decide what it wants to be. If socialist, then it must pay socialist tax rates. I see little evidence that the American people who just re-elected Obama want to part with their entitlements so…

    Where/when is the line officially crossed?

    Why does Kimpost bother working when he can just sit and home and take advantage of pure socialism? (Actually, maybe he does…)
    How do the Nordic countries have 16 of the world’s top 500 companies if they have to pay their share of so many entitlements?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  66. Thrill says:

    Doesn’t that show the projection made before anyone realised how bad this thing actually was? That’s usually what’s bandied about. Looks like it. If so, it’s not very fair. It’s also from a biased source

    The “oh, we didn’t know it was THAT bad” excuse means nothing to me. If the Administration didn’t know, then they’re inept either way. i reject the idea that hundreds of billions of dollars that we didn’t have to spend could have been improved upon with hundreds of billions of more dollars. In the longer term, the added cost of the debt is going to hurt us beyond any positive impact the stimulus had.

    And yes: Politifact is a bullshit source. Why in the fuck are we supposed to believe that journalists are somehow more trustworthy and reliable when they wrap themselves in the term “Fact Checkers”??? Fuck those guys.

    The stimulus was much less of a policy decision – it was the only real option (unless you dismiss mainstream economics).

    I dismiss Keynesian economics, yes, if that’s what you mean. If we were going to pile almost a trillion dollars onto the debt and effectively throw it away, we might as well have done something worthwhile with it.

    How do the Nordic countries have 16 of the world’s top 500 companies if they have to pay their share of so many entitlements?

    That statement comes across as funny. I lol’d. Less than 1% are in Nordic countries and you call that an accomplishment? If they’re such paradises to live and work in, why aren’t businesses moving there?

    Are we talking about the Fortune 500? You know that Wal-Mart is #2, right? Big, evil Wal-Mart that pays dirt and doesn’t allow unions. Three of the top ten are oil companies. I think all of the top ten countries on the list are all American and most are probably based in red states.

    16 out of 500? Come on…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  67. Iconoclast says:

    Funny how I’ve not yet encountered a single equivalent complaint about any right-wing sources.

    Why is that “funny”? After all, I have yet to encounter anyone besides yourself who so pointedly pontificates on “objectivity” and then turns around and leans so heavily on partisan sources. To me, that’s what’s funny.

    . I’ll make sure to point it out in future. They appear often.

    Hey, knock yourself out. But bear in mind that ignoring facts, such as the fact of Soros’ liberal agenda that he’s advancing, and the fact that your source receives funding from that same Soros, is the epitome of naivete. But certainly, if you can point out where our right-wing sources are likewise funded by a right-wing George Soros counterpart, have at it.

    And rather than seeing “no need to question their conclusions at all” I specifically requested questioning of the graph (i.e. their conclusions).

    Which I have already provided, and which you simply glossed over and dismissed. Like I said earlier, I do not see how it could be any clearer, which again leads to the conclusion that you simply don’t want to see it.

    My second quote quite clearly indicated that the Bush tax cuts were not the main factor, and went so far as to say that the tax cuts were inconsequential, but you obviously missed, ignored, or failed to comprehend that. To reiterate (emphasis added):

    Tax revenues have fluctuated largely with the economy, dropping precipitously in the aftermath of the 2008 recession, but are projected to remain close to historical norms with or without expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012.

    In other words, they make little if any difference.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  68. Iconoclast says:

    Year — Total Receipts

    2003 — 1,782,314,000,000
    2004 — 1,880,114,000,000
    2005 — 2,153,611,000,000
    2006 — 2,406,869,000,000
    2007 — 2,567,985,000,000
    2008 — 2,523,991,000,000
    2009 — 2,104,989,000,000
    2010 — 2,162,724,000,000

    So, even with the Bush tax cuts in place, total receipts steadily increased from 2003 through 2007 and started downward in the 2008 financial meltdown.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  69. Iconoclast says:

    Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov slash omb slash budget slash Historicals and look at Table 1-1.

    This software simply won’t let me publish that url at all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  70. Iconoclast says:

    A bit more comprehensive from the same source — I added the commentary to the right:

    1993 — 1,154,335,000,000  <– Clinton enters office, authorizes tax increase
    1994 — 1,258,566,000,000  <– Revenues increase after tax INCREASE goes into effect
    1995 — 1,351,790,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
    1996 — 1,453,053,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
    1997 — 1,579,232,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues — net increase from 1993 is 36.8%
    1998 — 1,721,728,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues AFTER 1997 TAX CUTS
    1999 — 1,827,452,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
    2000 — 2,025,191,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
    2001 — 1,991,082,000,000  <– Bush takes office, 9/11 causes economic downturn
    2002 — 1,853,136,000,000  <– Downturn continues
    2003 — 1,782,314,000,000  <– Downturn continues, so Bush authorizes tax CUTS
    2004 — 1,880,114,000,000  <– Revenues increase after tax CUTS go into effect
    2005 — 2,153,611,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
    2006 — 2,406,869,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues
    2007 — 2,567,985,000,000  <– Revenue increase continues — net increase from 2003 is 44.1%
    2008 — 2,523,991,000,000  <– Revenues DECREASE as economy begins meltdown
    2009 — 2,104,989,000,000  <– Revenue DECREASE continues as economy meltdown continues

    According to this article, the Clinton Administration themselves admitted that the tax increases failed to create budget surpluses, which was the goal. In the end, it was restrained spending in the latter half of the decade that lead to the surpluses, and that restrained spending was facilitated by a Republican-controlled Congress. There was even a tax cut in 1997, yet we still had increased revenues and a surplus.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  71. AlexInCT says:

    According to this article, the Clinton Administration themselves admitted that the tax increases failed to create budget surpluses, which was the goal. In the end, it was restrained spending in the latter half of the decade that lead to the surpluses, and that restrained spending was facilitated by a Republican-controlled Congress

    How do these fact support and justify the class warrior’s plan to fool envious people into thinking that just taking more money from the rich will somehow magically fix everything and even allow them to spend more? It doesn’t. That’s why they refuse to see these facts and make insane and ludicrous accusations that somehow spending way more than you have isn’t a problem, because the real problem is government isn’t fleecing people harder.

    Look, at this point it is obvious that to just cover the current annual spending gap these crooks would have to do a lot more than just raise taxes on the rich. Heck, even if they confiscated ALL the rich people’s money, it gives them enough to stay afloat for a little over a year, and then we are back to the same issue. Only we now have no more rich people to rob blind.

    The only way we cover the gap in what they are spending now and what they are collecting is if we basically raise taxes on everyone. No more people getting tax money back when they pay nothing. The middle class gets hammered. Investments get hammered. The hike will have to provide an almost 50% jump in what government collects now.

    Them is economy crushing numbers. They would end up with maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of the extra revenue they hoped to collect from such a hike. And I am being extremely generous, because I believe they would actually end up losing income, compared to the current level, as the economy imploded. The number of people with their hands out would sky rocket, and their need for more spending would jump drastically. Not that they see any of that as anything but a big vote getting bonus. The goal is to have as many serfs as possible to guarantee them perpetual power.

    If you need proof they are not negotiating in earnest, just take a look at those cuts they promised. Good luck with that.

    We are fucked. The spenders are going to destroy the goose that laid the golden eggs because they finally got the takers to outnumber the makers, and the death spiral is now irreversable.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  72. Kimpost says:

    We work in Scandinavia because we have to (yes, me too *sob*) The safety net we have, can’t provide for anything close to what most people here would call a decent living. Even if the safety net by large, is much wider than the one in US, it still doesn’t cut it. Then again, it’s not supposed to. Like most safety nets, ours is designed to help people in need, not to carry them.

    This isn’t a slippery slope game. Capitalism fits perfectly well into mixed economies with very different tax rates. I regard Sweden as very capitalistic even if our government is roughly 80% larger than yours, measured by tax revenue as percentage of GDP. Looking at the list it seems to me that +40% is becoming the norm. (Good luck with that whole “getting back to 18%”-thing some were fantasizing about before the election. Even 15% was mentioned. Yep, that will happen. Say hello to 30% in a decade.)

    Sweden: 47%
    US: 26.9 %
    UK: 39%
    New Zealand 34.5%
    Germany: 40.6%
    France: 44.6%

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  73. CM says:

    The “oh, we didn’t know it was THAT bad” excuse means nothing to me. If the Administration didn’t know, then they’re inept either way.

    NOBODY knew. The Administratin, no matter which flavour is in charge, takes the advice of economists. Which is what they did. You can only make projections and policy decisions based on the best data and analysis at the time. The economy was free-falling much faster than experts realised at the time; the initial GDP estimate for the fourth quarter of 2008 was a recession-level negative 4 percent, later revised to a depression-level negative 8.9 percent.

    The stimulus bill helped stop the free fall. Job losses peaked the month before it passed. The jobs numbers that spring, while still grim, marked the biggest quarterly improvement in almost 30 years. The Recovery Act launched a weak recovery, but even a weak recovery beats a depression.

    Using that graph is misleading. It’s was used to help sell the stimulus and then has been used for political purposes (out of context). Much like how you’re complaining the graph I linked to is used.

    i reject the idea that hundreds of billions of dollars that we didn’t have to spend could have been improved upon with hundreds of billions of more dollars. In the longer term, the added cost of the debt is going to hurt us beyond any positive impact the stimulus had.

    That’s fine, but mainstream economics doesn’t reject it.

    And yes: Politifact is a bullshit source. Why in the fuck are we supposed to believe that journalists are somehow more trustworthy and reliable when they wrap themselves in the term “Fact Checkers”??? Fuck those guys.

    Why not just follow the logic and check THEIR sources then. They’re all on the righ t hand side. They couldn’t really make it any easier. Specifically what at that link don’t you believe?

    As usual, this whole ‘source’ thing gets ludicrious really fast.

    I dismiss Keynesian economics, yes, if that’s what you mean. If we were going to pile almost a trillion dollars onto the debt and effectively throw it away, we might as well have done something worthwhile with it.

    Most economists, and I bet millions of Americans that kept or go jobs (directly or indirectly via ongoing stimulation of demand), certainly disagree that the stimulus was “throwing money away”. What is a more worthwhile way to spend money than to turn a potential depression into a weak recovery?

    Many reputable economists believe the stimulus should have been larger, as that would have provided even more bang-for-your-buck.

    It wasn’t a trillion dollars of spending anyway, it was $499 billion of spending and $288 billion in tax cuts. Unless you’re suggesting that the tax cuts equates to throwing money away and adding to the debt…..

    16 out of 500? Come on…

    Why are there any, if there are so many other places to operate (where the takers don’t fleece the makers)? The point is – countries that are far more socialistic than the US have plenty of businesses making large profits. There are plenty of opportunities to create businesses. The unemployment figures in many of these countries is lower than in the US (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Finland).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  74. CM says:

    Why is that “funny”?

    Because it makes me laugh.

    After all, I have yet to encounter anyone besides yourself who so pointedly pontificates on “objectivity” and then turns around and leans so heavily on partisan sources. To me, that’s what’s funny.

    Yeah, how terrible to care about objectivity.
    Are you suggesting that if you don’t complain (or care) about being objective, it’s totally fine to not bother? Because I don’t understand that logic.

    CM:

    I assume he’s been ‘led astray’ by this graph?
    And yet the evidence shows……what exactly?

    Hardly saying: “here are the facts”. In fact, it’s the opposite.
    So I’d be interested to hear how you define “leans so heavily on partisan sources”.

    Hey, knock yourself out. But bear in mind that ignoring facts, such as the fact of Soros’ liberal agenda that he’s advancing, and the fact that your source receives funding from that same Soros, is the epitome of naivete.

    When did I ignore or dispute that Soros has a liberal agenda he’s advancing? Would you agree that because Heritage is a heavily politicially biased source, everything from it should be disregarded? How about assessing the actual merits of the material or the arguments? Whatever happened to that? Sure, be aware of where it’s coming from, but if the material or the arguments stack up, it’s not relevant.

    But certainly, if you can point out where our right-wing sources are likewise funded by a right-wing George Soros counterpart, have at it.

    In this thread:
    The WSJ: owned by Rupert Murdoch
    The Tax Foundation: pro-business, anti-tax bias, ties to various conservative groups.
    The Heritage Foundation: conservative think tank, part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program
    American Enterprise Institute: stated mission is “to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate”
    Cato @ Liberty: libertarian think tank, founded as the Charles Koch Foundation. Stated mission is “to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace….”

    Which I have already provided, and which you simply glossed over and dismissed. Like I said earlier, I do not see how it could be any clearer, which again leads to the conclusion that you simply don’t want to see it.

    Your own link (from the WSJ so we can dismiss it because it’s owned and controlled by a right-winger) concludes with the point that it’s not just spending and it’s not just tax. It’s a mixture. Which is what’s shown in the graph.

    In other words, they make little if any difference.

    “Close to historical norms” was also what was projected if the tax cuts didn’t take place, because “close to historical norms” can be used to describe pretty much anything. If revenues had continued at the “1971-2010 average” line they could still have been said to be “close to historical norms” but over a number of years would have broughy in substantially more revenue.
    That link is from The Tax Foundation, which we can dismiss as a biased source.
    It’s at odds with Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, who say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. If I was going to respond in kind I might suggest that ignoring what all that mainstream analysis shows and preferring what William McBride of the Tax Foundation says in his piece (and any other sources who have an agenda to sell a political narrative) is the epitome of naivete.

    So, even with the Bush tax cuts in place, total receipts steadily increased from 2003 through 2007 and started downward in the 2008 financial meltdown.

    Unless you are suggesting that receipts could not have been even higher during those years had the Bush tax cuts not been passed, I’m not sure what that proves. Receipts are generally forecast to expand naturally, as the number of people working increases and economy expands accordingly. Growth is the (natual) rule rather than the exception.

    According to this article, the Clinton Administration themselves admitted that the tax increases failed to create budget surpluses, which was the goal. In the end, it was restrained spending in the latter half of the decade that lead to the surpluses, and that restrained spending was facilitated by a Republican-controlled Congress. There was even a tax cut in 1997, yet we still had increased revenues and a surplus.

    The numbers you’ve taken from that unquotable link show large year-after-year revenue increases after the 1993 tax increase. That the goal was to create budget surplus suggests they either weren’t as high as predicted, or spending was higher. Either way, irrelevant to what the tax increase did to revenue.
    I think what’s clear is that tax increases or decreases don’t inherently lead to revenue decreases or increases. There are other factors at play that make all the difference, including the state of the economy in the cycle, what the actual changes are (which taxes, at which income level).

    How do these fact support and justify the class warrior’s plan to fool envious people into thinking that just taking more money from the rich will somehow magically fix everything and even allow them to spend more?

    Alex why do you persist with this straw man?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  75. CM says:

    The spenders are going to destroy the goose that laid the golden eggs because they finally got the takers to outnumber the makers, and the death spiral is now irreversable.

    Kimpost, as your takers FAR FAR outnumber your makers, why are you not dead already? Is the spiral just really really really long? How long have you been walking towards the light?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  76. Iconoclast says:

    Yeah, how terrible to care about objectivity.

    “Caring” and pretense are not the same thing.

    Are you suggesting that if you don’t complain (or care) about being objective, it’s totally fine to not bother?

    Nope. Just sayin’ that your pretenses are not convincing, that’s all.

    Because I don’t understand that logic.

    And…? It’s your argument, not mine.

    Hardly saying: “here are the facts”. In fact, it’s the opposite.

    Nonsense. Your use of scare quotes around “led astray” suggests that the graph is accurately depicting reality.

    So I’d be interested to hear how you define “leans so heavily on partisan sources”.

    What part of that phrase do you need help with? It ain’t complicated — you consistently cite liberal sources to back up your liberal views. That in itself is not a problem; your sanctimonious pretenses toward objectivity is the problem.

    When did I ignore or dispute that Soros has a liberal agenda he’s advancing?

    When did I claim that you ignored or disputed it?

    Would you agree that because Heritage is a heavily politicially biased source, everything from it should be disregarded?

    When did I claim that things should be “disregarded”?

    Your own link (from the WSJ so we can dismiss it because it’s owned and controlled by a right-winger) concludes with the point that it’s not just spending and it’s not just tax. It’s a mixture. Which is what’s shown in the graph.

    This is almost pathologically misleading — the graph claims that the TAX CUTS make up the LION’S SHARE of the deficit, whereas the links argue that spending makes up the lion’s share. Obviously “it’s a ‘mixture’” of the two, but the point is which is the greater culprit? All you are attempting to do is muddy the waters by claiming that the graph and the links I posted specifically to refute the graph are somehow in harmonious agreement, which is ludicrous.

    “Close to historical norms” was also what was projected if the tax cuts didn’t take place, because “close to historical norms” can be used to describe pretty much anything

    Sure, but the article did define exactly what was meant by the phrase. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what exactly it means in the article, and you can then either dispute it or not. Or you can stick with the hand-wave dismissal — doesn’t matter to me.

    That link is from The Tax Foundation, which we can dismiss as a biased source.
    It’s at odds with Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, who say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been — even if they spur some economic growth.

    Oh? So government bureaucracies are claiming that tax cuts are not a good thing? Sound the trumpets!

    So go ahead and provide links to each of these sources, showing how they each came to the conclusion that “tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been”, and explaining how they all “know” what they “otherwise would have been” in the first place.

    You see, I am somewhat of a rebel in that I don’t simply believe something is true just because a government bureaucrat proclaims it so. In the mean time, I will repeat some raw data and my own commentary:

    1993 — 1,154,335,000,000 <- Clinton enters office, authorizes tax increase
    1994 — 1,258,566,000,000 <- Revenues increase after tax INCREASE goes into effect
    1995 — 1,351,790,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues
    1996 — 1,453,053,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues
    1997 — 1,579,232,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues — net increase from 1993 is 36.8%
    1998 — 1,721,728,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues AFTER 1997 TAX CUTS
    1999 — 1,827,452,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues
    2000 — 2,025,191,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues
    2001 — 1,991,082,000,000 <- Bush takes office, 9/11 causes economic downturn
    2002 — 1,853,136,000,000 <- Downturn continues
    2003 — 1,782,314,000,000 <- Downturn continues, so Bush authorizes tax CUTS
    2004 — 1,880,114,000,000 <- Revenues increase after tax CUTS go into effect
    2005 — 2,153,611,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues
    2006 — 2,406,869,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues
    2007 — 2,567,985,000,000 <- Revenue increase continues — net increase from 2003 is 44.1%
    2008 — 2,523,991,000,000 <- Revenues DECREASE as economy begins meltdown

    Notice that the net increase from Clinton’s tax increase is 36.8%, whereas the net increase from Bush’s tax cut over a similar time period is 44.1%. Also, the increases in the early 1990′s may very well have been momentum from the Reagan/Bush years — there is no way of knowing for sure that they’re the “result” of Clinton’s tax hike. In addition, revenues were decreasing when Bush authorized the tax cuts in 2003, and immediately the situation turned around and we had revenue increases in 2004 and beyond.

    If I was going to respond in kind I might suggest that ignoring what all that mainstream analysis shows and preferring what William McBride of the Tax Foundation says in his piece (and any other sources who have an agenda to sell a political narrative) is the epitome of naivete.

    Fine by me — I would simply respond by suggesting that meekly swallowing what government bureaucrats proclaim rather than questioning it would be said epitome. Or perhaps swallowing their proclamations without question instead of looking at the data yourself and drawing your own conclusions could very well qualify.

    Unless you are suggesting that receipts could not have been even higher during those years had the Bush tax cuts not been passed, I’m not sure what that proves.

    Of course you aren’t sure, and no, it doesn’t “prove” anything. But my analysis does indeed suggest a couple of things, things with which those bureaucracies you mentioned would probably disagree. Not that it matters; I don’t require their agreement.

    Growth is the (natual) rule rather than the exception.

    If that’s the case, then again, we cannot be sure that Clinton’s tax hikes had the desired effect. I have already cited an article which showed that they didn’t.

    I think what’s clear is that tax increases or decreases don’t inherently lead to revenue decreases or increases.

    Oh, of course, but many on your side seem convinced that the opposite is true, including government bureaucrats.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  77. CM says:

    Nope. Just sayin’ that your pretenses are not convincing, that’s all.

    Well I know that I do try. And I know other’s don’t.

    Nonsense. Your use of scare quotes around “led astray” suggests that the graph is accurately depicting reality.

    That was summarising Dave’s opinion (that his son had been ‘”led astray” by nonsense). Whether the graph itself was actually nonsense or not was essentially the next question.

    What part of that phrase do you need help with?

    How it can be contorted to apply to left-wing sources and not right-wing sources. How putting something up for a discussion equates to “leaning heavily on”.

    It ain’t complicated — you consistently cite liberal sources to back up your liberal views. That in itself is not a problem; your sanctimonious pretenses toward objectivity is the problem.

    Of course it’s a problem – it’s been raised here as a fundamental problem, entirely separate from any claim.
    Anyway, I think this issue with sourcing is mostly nonsense. I’m quite happy to accept certain things from a right wing source. Depends on what it is. If it’s an argument, I’ll accept it as an argument. If it’s a fact, also found elsewhere, and with nothing to suggest it’s wrong, I’ll accept it. If it’s analysis, then I’ll assess it on it’s merits.

    When did I claim that you ignored or disputed it?

    When you said:

    But bear in mind that ignoring facts, such as the fact of Soros’ liberal agenda that he’s advancing, and the fact that your source receives funding from that same Soros, is the epitome of naivete.

    Unless I’ve misinterpreted.

    When did I claim that things should be “disregarded”?

    A natural conclusion to your comments about what can be expected from partisan sources.

    This is almost pathologically misleading — the graph claims that the TAX CUTS make up the LION’S SHARE of the deficit, whereas the links argue that spending makes up the lion’s share. Obviously “it’s a ‘mixture’” of the two, but the point is which is the greater culprit? All you are attempting to do is muddy the waters by claiming that the graph and the links I posted specifically to refute the graph are somehow in harmonious agreement, which is ludicrous.

    Well I wasn’t intending on being “pathologically misleading”.
    The main argument was about how much of the decifit can be placed at Bush’s door. Dave didn’t differentiate as to whether his son believe’s less revenue or more spending was the worst culprit. Yes, the graph I linked to does assign more blame to tax cuts, and I don’t doubt that other analyses show different levels of culpability. Which ones provide Obama’s share of culpability?

    Sure, but the article did define exactly what was meant by the phrase. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what exactly it means in the article, and you can then either dispute it or not. Or you can stick with the hand-wave dismissal — doesn’t matter to me.

    (Shall we accept that no discussion with me ever matters to you and then you don’t need to keep saying it – will save time and effort each time – you manage to get a variation to this theme in most of your posts to me)

    I’ve briefly looked at it again. McBride’s analysis seems to diverge so much from the CBO because the CBO have significant loss revenue in their assessment (they specifically indicate which tax changes lost how much revenue). McBride seems to operate on the basis that revenues would have been much the same (regardless of tax changes), because any loss can be attributed to the Bush recessions (and not to Bush policy).
    Does that make sense?

    Oh? So government bureaucracies are claiming that tax cuts are not a good thing? Sound the trumpets!

    Is there anyone ‘independent’ then?

    So go ahead and provide links to each of these sources, showing how they each came to the conclusion that “tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been”, and explaining how they all “know” what they “otherwise would have been” in the first place.

    There doesn’t seem any point.

    Notice that the net increase from Clinton’s tax increase is 36.8%, whereas the net increase from Bush’s tax cut over a similar time period is 44.1%.

    Can you link to analysis which demonstrates that these are direct cause-and-effect situations? As I said, surely we can all agree that a whole lot of factors determine outcomes.

    Also, the increases in the early 1990′s may very well have been momentum from the Reagan/Bush years — there is no way of knowing for sure that they’re the “result” of Clinton’s tax hike. In addition, revenues were decreasing when Bush authorized the tax cuts in 2003, and immediately the situation turned around and we had revenue increases in 2004 and beyond.

    Right, but again, the only analysis I can find from anyone remotely non-partisan says that the Bush taxs significantly reduced revenue that would have otherwise been collected. If they’re wrong, where is the better analysis which shows how and why?

    Fine by me — I would simply respond by suggesting that meekly swallowing what government bureaucrats proclaim rather than questioning it would be said epitome.

    I have no problem with anyone questioning it. Not all questioning is created equal though.

    Or perhaps swallowing their proclamations without question instead of looking at the data yourself and drawing your own conclusions could very well qualify.

    Much of the analysis, from all sides, is derived from CBO projections and updates. The CBO provide what they consider to be the lost revenue from the tax cuts.
    Again, I did ask the question about what the reality is, if that graph I posted was wrong.

    Of course you aren’t sure, and no, it doesn’t “prove” anything. But my analysis does indeed suggest a couple of things, things with which those bureaucracies you mentioned would probably disagree. Not that it matters; I don’t require their agreement.

    Of course you don’t, but if you’re going to discuss it, you do kinda need to show why the “lost revenue” thing is bogus. Otherwise it’s an obvious question to keep asking.

    Oh, of course, but many on your side seem convinced that the opposite is true, including government bureaucrats.

    I’ll have a word to them at the next meeting. If they’re government bureaucrats, obviously they’ve signed that pledge which says they’ll put partisan interests ahead of their professionalism. ;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  78. AlexInCT says:

    Kimpost, as your takers FAR FAR outnumber your makers, why are you not dead already? Is the spiral just really really really long? How long have you been walking towards the light?

    Given time, all of them end up like Greece and Argentina. Don’t get fooled just because things have been great while they had other people’s money to spend. The shit hits the fan when the other people run out of money. Sooner than later that happens. Ask Californians or people from Illinois. They used to laugh, when people pointed out they where on an unsustainable road, too. And this was just some 5 or 6 years ago. No matter how much you want to, you can not socioengineer the laws of economics or human nature. No matter how hard they keep trying. Sweden will get there too. You would be remiss to think because it hasnt happen that it can’t or wont.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  79. CM says:

    There we go Kimpost. You might be able to fuck goats now, but ultimately you’re still fucking yourselves.

    The Nordic model refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland). This particular adaptation of the mixed economy is characterised by “universalist” welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilising the economy. The Nordic model is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of wealth redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[1] The Nordic Model however is not a single identical set of policies and rules in every country; each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.

    The Swedish adaptation of the Nordic model is based on a high degree of private ownership, with 90% of firms privately-owned, 5% run by the state, and another 5% operated as consumer and producer co-operatives.[2] In contrast, Norway features a high degree of state enterprise combined with a welfare state.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

    “Nah, fuck it, you’re all the same. There are only two extremes”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  80. Kimpost says:

    “Other people’s money” *sigh*

    The way I see it balancing a budget is balancing a budget is balancing a budget. An economy goes to shits if you fail in that department – long term. A modern mixed economy welfare state doesn’t have to become USSR. There’s no inevitable slippery slope of doom.

    If you have too many welfare programs, scrap a few. Or keep them and raise taxes to pay for them. Want to go to war? Scrap a program or two, or raise taxes to pay for it. You no longer need libraries? Close them and use the savings for lowering taxes. Or build parks. Whatever. Regardless, of which, this is how we have set up our respective societies. We vote, we try things, we adapt.

    People would be better off if they dropped the doomsday scenarios. Reality is bad enough without them. I’ve seen blogs predicting WW3 next summer. Sweden won’t last forever, no country will, but it’s my firm belief that our (I include US here) way of setting up our respective societies (individual freedom, democracy, rule of law), has given us a pretty good shot at long term survival. I’d certainly bet on any of us over a dictatorship every day of the week.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  81. Iconoclast says:

    That was summarising Dave’s opinion (that his son had been “led astray” by nonsense).

    That may have been your intent, but it came across as disagreement that he was led astray, which implies the graph to be accurate/valid. If you had simply said, “I assume he’s been led astray by this graph?”, that would have implied that you agreed that he was led astray, and therefore that the graph was misleading.

    Furthermore, you followed up with, “And yet the evidence shows…..what exactly?”, which further implied that you consider the graph to be a valid piece of evidence that should be heeded. The only question I saw was, “What does this graph say?” I certainly did not see the question, “Is this graph valid?” Quite the opposite, actually; the validity of the graph seemed to be a given.

    How it can be contorted to apply to left-wing sources and not right-wing sources.

    Well, my follow-up, which you quoted, explains what I meant, so your assertion that “it can be contorted to apply to left-wing sources and not right-wing sources” is a non sequitur. I never implied that the same couldn’t hold for someone on the right; certainly, a right-winger can just as easily lean on right-wing sources while pontificating on “objectivity”. I just don’t see that happening in this venue. If you can cite examples, have at it.

    I’m quite happy to accept certain things from a right wing source.

    I don’t recall any time where that actually, you know, happened. Again, if you can provide an actual example, please do.

    When you said:

    But bear in mind that ignoring facts, such as the fact of Soros’ liberal agenda that he’s advancing, and the fact that your source receives funding from that same Soros, is the epitome of naivete.

    And when you said:

    Funny how I’ve not yet encountered a single equivalent complaint about any right-wing sources. I’ll make sure to point it out in future. They appear often.

    You certainly appeared to be “ignoring the fact of Soros’ liberal agenda that he’s advancing, and the fact that your source receives funding from that same Soros”. At the very least, you appeared to be dismissing it, which amounts to the same thing.

    A natural conclusion to your comments about what can be expected from partisan sources.

    So I didn’t say it — you simply jumped to that conclusion, claiming that jump to be “natural”. Well, I guess jumping to conclusions can be natural…

    The main argument was about how much of the decifit can be placed at Bush’s door. Dave didn’t differentiate as to whether his son believe’s less revenue or more spending was the worst culprit

    Dave only mentioned three things, the tax cuts, the wars, and revenue, so your “main argument” has a faulty premise. Dave didn’t mention spending, except for the wars, which is more-or-less a constant that is maintained throughout the Obama terms on that graph. No, this argument is about the Bush tax cuts, first and foremost.

    (Shall we accept that no discussion with me ever matters to you…

    Gotta love your sanctimony while misrepresenting what I say. I never said that the discussion “didn’t matter” (although, in the Grand Scheme of the Universe, it probably doesn’t matter, but I digress). No, I simply note that a given reaction to a specific assertion or observation doesn’t matter. If you simply give a specific assertion or observation a hand-wave dismissal, we can all surmise rather accurately, I would think, that the specific assertion or observation does, in fact, not matter to you.

    Is there anyone ‘independent’ then?

    Perhaps, but it seems unlikely that anyone who’s salary is paid by collected taxes would qualify as “independent”, even if they would claim to be such.

    There doesn’t seem any point.

    Whether there “seems” to be a point doesn’t matter. There is at least one point, and that would be whether you can back up your assertions. If you cannot be bothered, then yes, perhaps there isn’t any point.

    Can you link to analysis which demonstrates that these are direct cause-and-effect situations?

    Are you kidding? Historical patterns aren’t enough for you?

    Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

    Why do total tax revenues go down when income tax rates go up (and vice versa)?

    Sowell: Higher tax rates don’t always add up to more revenue

    Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

    Morning Bell: The Truth About Tax Cuts

    Of course, liberal web sites seem to outnumber conservative ones, and many of the liberal ones share the sentiment that we “have to go to the CBO analysis” to get at the “truth”, and of course, the CBO claims that revenues “would have been higher” without the tax cuts. Historical patterns be damned.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  82. AlexInCT says:

    Pearls to swines Iconoclast.. Pearls to swines…

    No matter what evidence, or how convincing the evidence, presented to make the case that lower taxes spur economic growth and increase government revenue overall, while the inverse happens when taxes get raised, will convince Tax & Spenders to abandon their religious beliefs.

    Attempts at using facts and logic to show the truth of these economic laws to Tax & Spenders, are like attempts to argue with a religious people where you try to make the case that the fundamental premise on which their religion is predicated, is based on a falsehood, and hence, their religion is in error. And have no doubt that the Tax & Spenders are religious fanatics, either. God was replaced by the state, the ultimate arbitrer of good and evil, and the sole mechanism to justly pick winners and losers, because after all, the state says it is the sole entity that can bring peace and justice for all, on earth.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  83. CM says:

    That may have been your intent, but it came across as disagreement that he was led astray, which implies the graph to be accurate/valid. If you had simply said, “I assume he’s been led astray by this graph?”, that would have implied that you agreed that he was led astray, and therefore that the graph was misleading.

    Dave clearly sees that his son was “led astray” I was paraphrasing Dave’s sentiment.
    I was seeking confirmation that
    (a) it was that graph (or an equivalent) that was at issue
    (b) assuming it was, what the arguments against it were which were so compelling that led to disappointment that his son had fallen for it

    I never implied that the same couldn’t hold for someone on the right; certainly, a right-winger can just as easily lean on right-wing sources while pontificating on “objectivity”. I just don’t see that happening in this venue. If you can cite examples, have at it.

    Oh come on. Objectivity is implied. Nobody here uses a right-wing source but adds anything that suggests care should be exercised because the source is biased. It’s always taken as a given that the material is fact or the truth.
    Please.

    I don’t recall any time where that actually, you know, happened. Again, if you can provide an actual example, please do.

    I have no reason to doubt Alex’s extremely biased source here
    http://right-thinking.com/2012/11/30/thanks-for-the-votes/

    In the vast majority of cases I won’t have commented, or my comments won’t be “Despite the source, I fully believe that this is fact”. I don’t dispute what’s at many of the right-wing links on this very thread (I listed and bolded and sources).

    You certainly appeared to be “ignoring the fact of Soros’ liberal agenda that he’s advancing, and the fact that your source receives funding from that same Soros”. At the very least, you appeared to be dismissing it, which amounts to the same thing.

    Well, I did assume that Dave’s son was being led astray by something that you’re more likely to find at a left-wing website. That Soros is somehow involved didn’t seem relevant. Where did I dismiss it as irrelevant? If the complaint is that I didn’t acknowledge it, the same can be said for a significant percentage of the sources used here, which are no less biased.
    If the graph is misleading, wrong, inaccurate, whatever, we should be able to discuss why and how. We should be able to discuss it without getting dragged down into yet another complaint-session about sources.

    So I didn’t say it — you simply jumped to that conclusion, claiming that jump to be “natural”. Well, I guess jumping to conclusions can be natural…

    Well I don’t think you’re innocent on that score (“…may have been your intent, but it came across as…”, “You certainly appeared to be….”)
    This issue reminds me of BluesStringer at MW Forums (who posted here as CzarChasm). He was an absolute master of telling people what they meant.

    Dave only mentioned three things, the tax cuts, the wars, and revenue, so your “main argument” has a faulty premise. Dave didn’t mention spending, except for the wars, which is more-or-less a constant that is maintained throughout the Obama terms on that graph. No, this argument is about the Bush tax cuts, first and foremost.

    Ah ok, so now we can’t even agree what is being discussed.

    Gotta love your sanctimony while misrepresenting what I say. I never said that the discussion “didn’t matter” (although, in the Grand Scheme of the Universe, it probably doesn’t matter, but I digress). No, I simply note that a given reaction to a specific assertion or observation doesn’t matter. If you simply give a specific assertion or observation a hand-wave dismissal, we can all surmise rather accurately, I would think, that the specific assertion or observation does, in fact, not matter to you.

    My sanctimony was in reaction to yours. Constant variations on the same theme (“It doesn’t matter to me what you believe” etc etc). I do not believe in this specific case that I gave a “hand wave dismissal” at all. But then you state “it doesn’t matter to me”, which is inarguably a “hand wave dismissal” that you don’t care whether I go back and have another look or not. Like continuing is now so far beneath you or something. Anyway, regardless, I do apologise for reacting rather strongly – it was a bit of a dick move on my part.

    Perhaps, but it seems unlikely that anyone who’s salary is paid by collected taxes would qualify as “independent”, even if they would claim to be such.

    Then I’m wondering if it’s even possible to find anyone that can be agreed to be “independent”?
    It sounds like I’d have a lower standard of acceptability. I value the concept of professionalism and I do extend a certain amount of trust to people in professional positions, particularly if they’re experienced and highly respected in their field.
    (This ‘how much can we trust in professionals?’ is one of my favourite issues)

    Whether there “seems” to be a point doesn’t matter. There is at least one point, and that would be whether you can back up your assertions. If you cannot be bothered, then yes, perhaps there isn’t any point.

    I’m sure you know that what you’re asking for would take many many hours (and I could equally ask for the analysis which explains precisely how it can be determined that it was the Bush recessions that resulted in a lower tax take and not the tax cuts).
    I spend more time than most searching for evidence and linking to it (to the point that I get criticised for linking too much, and told that I should only do it when challenged). Anyway, in this case a non-partisan body, respected by most (aside from the extreme right I think) has set out the specifics of the revenue lost to the Bush tax cuts. I linked to it. This, among other things, has been used to put together a graph. Some people (here and elsewhere) strongly dispute the accuracy of the graph (or say it’s misleading). The analysis they put forward to support their view seems to disagree with the CBO numbers (which are very specific) about the Bush tax cuts leading to revenue losses. However we’re not really scratching below the surface on that, we’re not really getting beyond the ‘questioning’. The second link on your early post essentially seems to say that spending was the more significant culprit because revenue losses either weren’t real or can be put down to natural causes (recessions) rather than policy (tax cuts).

    Are you kidding? Historical patterns aren’t enough for you?

    No.
    “Historical patterns” is too vague and prone to people being incredibly selective in their desire to “prov”e their “narrative”. For example, we’ve always had climate change but historical patterns aren’t enough to explain what’s happening now.

    But when I get a chance I’ll check out your links.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  84. CM says:

    Of course, liberal web sites seem to outnumber conservative ones, and many of the liberal ones share the sentiment that we “have to go to the CBO analysis” to get at the “truth”, and of course, the CBO claims that revenues “would have been higher” without the tax cuts. Historical patterns be damned.

    So why does the CBO “damn the historical pattern”? If they’re going against prevailing economic wisdom on this, how do they explain it? And why do so many professional economists accept it? And if so many do, was that actually the prevailing economic wisdom in the first place?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  85. Iconoclast says:

    The name of this blog is “Right Thinking From the Left Coast”, and you’re going to insist that “objectivity is implied” when right-wing sources are cited? “Come on”, indeed. The only thing that’s implied is the correctness of the conservative/libertarian viewpoint. You can claim that “objectivity is implied” all you want, and you can complain about the lack of “this source is not necessarily objective” disclaimers when citing right-wing sources, but that simply comes across as raw desperation, as far as I’m concerned.

    And if the best you can do regarding “agreeing” with a right-wing source is to reference a post Alex made after this thread was relegated to page 2 or 3, then you’ve essentially made my point for me.

    If you want to ignore obvious historical patterns and rely on what government bureaucrats tell you, that’s your business, but again, I’m the one living under this damned regime; you have no stake in the situation, you aren’t the one getting tax hikes, more bloated government, reduced standard of living, etc. I am.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  86. Iconoclast says:

    Oh, and yeah, I can imagine the difficulty in providing substantiation for your claims. Too bad. Not my problem. I provided a cite to back up my claims, and you claimed that several groups (all government related) claimed otherwise, and sanctimoniously claimed their viewpoint to be “mainstream”. Thanks for all but admitting that you simply cannot be bothered to back that up.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  87. CM says:

    The name of this blog is “Right Thinking From the Left Coast”, and you’re going to insist that “objectivity is implied” when right-wing sources are cited? “Come on”, indeed. The only thing that’s implied is the correctness of the conservative/libertarian viewpoint.

    Oh ok, when people use right-wing sources they’re not necessarily suggesting the information is correct. I see. Well, I never got that impression. But that’s really good if it’s true.
    I don’t think it is though. People here use right-wing sources and assume them to correct despite the bias.

    You can claim that “objectivity is implied” all you want, and you can complain about the lack of “this source is not necessarily objective” disclaimers when citing right-wing sources, but that simply comes across as raw desperation, as far as I’m concerned.

    That’s ok – by the same measure my ‘raw desperation’ here is a drop in an ocean.

    And if the best you can do regarding “agreeing” with a right-wing source is to reference a post Alex made after this thread was relegated to page 2 or 3, then you’ve essentially made my point for me.

    Wasn’t aiming for “best”. You asked for an example, I gave you one. And explained that I don’t make a habit of specifically pointing out when I agree with information from a right-wing source.
    I refuted your point.

    If you want to ignore obvious historical patterns and rely on what government bureaucrats tell you, that’s your business,

    And yet again and again I said I don’t want to do that. But I guess the same applies – if you want to continue to ignore that I don’t, that’s your business. Nothing I can do about it.

    but again, I’m the one living under this damned regime; you have no stake in the situation, you aren’t the one getting tax hikes, more bloated government, reduced standard of living, etc. I am.

    Very true. But irrelevant to which analysis is correct.

    Oh, and yeah, I can imagine the difficulty in providing substantiation for your claims. Too bad. Not my problem. I provided a cite to back up my claims, and you claimed that several groups (all government related) claimed otherwise, and sanctimoniously claimed their viewpoint to be “mainstream”.

    ‘Time-consuming’ is quite different to ‘difficult’.

    Thanks for all but admitting that you simply cannot be bothered to back that up.

    You’re welcome. I have better things to do with my time. If you were interested in objectivity, you’d have a look yourself. “Can’t be bothered” is quite different to “can’t do it”. For a start, they aren’t my claims. Second, even if I do “substantiate” them, you’ve already pre-dismissed them because they’re coming from a government-related assessment, and therefore cannot be trusted (irrespective of their accuracy).
    Thanks for illustrating so clearly how you have a far greater interest in playing the man and not the ball.

    Also, by that measure – I’ll assume you simply can’t be bothered to answer the two questions in my post previous to this.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  88. Iconoclast says:

    Oh ok, when people use right-wing sources they’re not necessarily suggesting the information is correct.

    Quit being so obtuse. What part of “The only thing that’s implied is the correctness of the conservative/libertarian viewpoint” are you utterly failing to comprehend?

    I refuted your point.

    You referenced something that happened after the fact, which disqualifies it. When I stated, “I don’t recall any time where that actually, you know, happened“, that was past tense. Conveniently citing something happening in the present fails to refute a past tense observation. If you think it does, that’s your problem.

    And yet again and again I said I don’t want to do that.

    But that is exactly what you appear to be doing, whether you “don’t want to” or not. When I ask if historical patterns aren’t enough and you reply “No”, that certainly looks like a dismissal, which is tantamount to ignoring them.

    I have better things to do with my time.

    You keep saying that and yet here you are, continuing this dead thread.

    If you were interested in objectivity, you’d have a look yourself.

    Two-way street; you are the one who pontificates on “objectivity”, not me. I already believe the conservative point of view is the correct one; the onus is on you to convince me otherwise. If you cannot be bothered, then that begs the question of why your here. If providing a convincing argument is not your objective, the logical conclusion is that you are trolling.

    Then I’m wondering if it’s even possible to find anyone that can be agreed to be “independent”?

    Maybe, maybe not. All I am saying is that the likelihood of someone on the government payroll being independent seem low.

    I value the concept of professionalism …

    So do I. I just don’t think is all that prevalent. I’m certainly not convinced that it’s prevalent among federal government bureaucrats.

    So why does the CBO “damn the historical pattern”?

    I didn’t say they did. I’m saying that you and liberals in general are using their “analysis” as an excuse to ignore the historical patterns.

    And why do so many professional economists accept it?

    Do they all “accept it”? Does a majority, or even a plurality? How many is “many”?

    For a start, they aren’t my claims.

    This is your claim:

    It’s at odds with Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, who say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.

    That is the claim you cannot be bothered to back up. The late Christopher Hitchens wrote, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. Based on that, there is no reason why I should accept your assertion. After all, it’s in response to, not my opinion, but to an actual citation of someone else’s analysis. If you think you’re going to refute something like that, you will need more than empty claims. If you “cannot be bothered”, then the question that comes to my mind is, why make the claims in the first place?

    But irrelevant to which analysis is correct.

    But quite relevant to how much weight I should be expected to place on an unsubstantiated claim…

    Second, even if I do “substantiate” them, you’ve already pre-dismissed them because they’re coming from a government-related assessment, and therefore cannot be trusted (irrespective of their accuracy).

    More misrepresentation. No, I simply question how “objective” they are. I am not “pre-dismissing” them. But since you cannot be bothered to provide them, I cannot judge their accuracy for myself. At least one of the links I actually did provide (since I can be bothered) actually claimed that there was an error in the CBO analysis. Just because it’s from government, it doesn’t make it infallible.

    I provided five links to support my position. You provided excuses.

    Also, by that measure – I’ll assume you simply can’t be bothered to answer the two questions in my post previous to this.

    You can assume anything you wish, but I did answer two questions from that post.

    Ah ok, so now we can’t even agree what is being discussed.

    This is what you quoted from Dave, not once, not even twice, but three separate times:

    …all of bHo’s defecits are due MAINLY to Bush’s tax cuts/wars and less income from tax revenue, so it’s not really his fault.

    You stated that that was what we were “dealing with”. So, when referencing that 3-time quote, I stated the following:

    Dave only mentioned three things, the tax cuts, the wars, and revenue, so your “main argument” has a faulty premise. Dave didn’t mention spending, except for the wars, which is more-or-less a constant that is maintained throughout the Obama terms on that graph. No, this argument is about the Bush tax cuts, first and foremost.

    Again, you are the one who claimed that that was what we were dealing with; I was just following your lead. So, explain how my observations are incorrect.

    He was an absolute master of telling people what they meant.

    Non sequitur. I tell you how things come across. I don’t presume to tell people “what they meant”. I mean, what part of “…may have been your intent, but it came across as…” do you not comprehend?

    Thanks for illustrating so clearly how you have a far greater interest in playing the man and not the ball.

    Said “illustration” being based on your misrepresentation, and therefore invalid.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  89. CM says:

    You referenced something that happened after the fact, which disqualifies it. When I stated, “I don’t recall any time where that actually, you know, happened“, that was past tense. Conveniently citing something happening in the present fails to refute a past tense observation. If you think it does, that’s your problem.

    Wow, talk about obtuse. Past, present, future- I either do it or I don’t.
    But, as explained and ignored, I don’t make a habit of going around actively saying I accept information from right-wing sources. Much like people on the right don’t go around actively saying they accept information from left-wing sources, even if they do.

    But that is exactly what you appear to be doing, whether you “don’t want to” or not. When I ask if historical patterns aren’t enough and you reply “No”, that certainly looks like a dismissal, which is tantamount to ignoring them.

    You know full well that I didn’t just dismiss it with a ‘No’. I said ‘No’ and explained why I don’t believe ‘historical patterns’ are necessarily sufficient (to claim causation).

    You keep saying that and yet here you are, continuing this dead thread.

    That’s a particular personal weakness of mine. Almost OCD.
    Although I was always intending to come back and check out your other links.

    Two-way street; you are the one who pontificates on “objectivity”, not me.

    Why would you engage in a discussion like this and not attempt to be objective? I really don’t understand that logic.

    I already believe the conservative point of view is the correct one; the onus is on you to convince me otherwise. If you cannot be bothered, then that begs the question of why your here. If providing a convincing argument is not your objective, the logical conclusion is that you are trolling.

    I’m not here to convince you of anything, just delving into stuff that interests me and discuss it with people who are willing. I don’t think that’s even remotely trolling. Trolling surely must require an intent to troll. I have no such intent or desire.

    Maybe, maybe not. All I am saying is that the likelihood of someone on the government payroll being independent seem low.

    Why would it be any lower than someone working on behalf of an organisation that has policial bias as a mission statement? At least someone working on the government payroll isn’t working under any political mission statement? At least they shouldn’t be. And even “shouldn’t be” beats “definitely”.

    So do I. I just don’t think is all that prevalent. I’m certainly not convinced that it’s prevalent among federal government bureaucrats.

    Even ones hired based on their profession?
    Personally I’d have to have pretty strong evidence of an ongoing pattern of corrupt professionals working for government to have that as my default setting/assumption, but then as I say, we’re obviously very different in this regard. I guess that’s possibly a result of being a professional who has worked for both public and private organisations for a number of years (and at the moment I do both and work hard at being ‘professional’).

    I didn’t say they did. I’m saying that you and liberals in general are using their “analysis” as an excuse to ignore the historical patterns.

    So how do the CBO get all that lost revenue? Asking that kind of question on a right-wing blog doesn’t seem consistent with your claim.

    Do they all “accept it”? Does a majority, or even a plurality? How many is “many”?

    Impossible to know unless we survey them all, but I’m sure I’m not going out on a limb to assume that not all accept it. But I’ve yet to see any economists provide an explanation as to how that lost revenue (allocated by the CBO to each of the tax changes) is wrong. I’ll keep looking (and not in the same was as OJ keeps looking). In one of your links the claim is made that revenues were lost due to the recessions not the tax cuts, there’s nothing specific to support that.

    That is the claim you cannot be bothered to back up.

    It was a claim made elsewhere, which I linked to.
    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/apr/29/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucinich-says-bush-tax-cuts-caused-subs/
    But no, you’re right, I didn’t go to the source material on that. I did go to the CBO source material though.

    The late Christopher Hitchens wrote, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. Based on that, there is no reason why I should accept your assertion.

    I am an admirer of Hitchens (although my wife is a true fan).
    Ok fine, dismiss it then. But I did link directly to the CBO table which outlines the amount of tax revenue which was determnied to have been lost to each of the tax cuts.

    After all, it’s in response to, not my opinion, but to an actual citation of someone else’s analysis. If you think you’re going to refute something like that, you will need more than empty claims. If you “cannot be bothered”, then the question that comes to my mind is, why make the claims in the first place?

    Your claim was that historical patterns were sufficient. The very idea that I might need anything else was pre-empted with “Are you kidding?”. I’ve met that same response when suggesting that previous changes in climate were entirely sufficient to explain the current changes in climate.

    But quite relevant to how much weight I should be expected to place on an unsubstantiated claim…

    I wouldn’t put much weight at all on an unsubstantiated claim.

    More misrepresentation. No, I simply question how “objective” they are. I am not “pre-dismissing” them.

    You’d made your position on assessment from government funded sources quite clear. There seems little point spending hours finding it all. A link to the specific CBO figures have been provided. How would providing much the same thing from another source alter your opinion on any of this? I’d rather just read repeatedly about how I can’t be bothered.

    But since you cannot be bothered to provide them, I cannot judge their accuracy for myself. At least one of the links I actually did provide (since I can be bothered) actually claimed that there was an error in the CBO analysis. Just because it’s from government, it doesn’t make it infallible.

    Never said it did. Not that I’ll claim misrepresentation or anything. I’ll go through your links now that I have more time.

    I provided five links to support my position. You provided excuses.

    Nice. You’ve got this down to a fine art I see. That’s almost a politician’s response.
    I regularly get accused of link bombing, so I find the accusation pretty funny.
    I did provide the CBO, CBPP and Politifact links.

    You can assume anything you wish, but I did answer two questions from that post.

    They were: “So why does the CBO “damn the historical pattern”? If they’re going against prevailing economic wisdom on this, how do they explain it?”

    I’ve not seen anything yet that answers those questions. I’m yet to check out your 5 ‘historical pattern’ links though, so I’ll assume the answers are in there somewhere.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  90. CM says:

    It’s at odds with Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, who say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.

    e>That is the claim you cannot be bothered to back up.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/19/joe-walsh/rep-joe-walsh-said-every-time-weve-cut-taxes-reven/

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/09/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-raising-taxes-lowers-tax-revenues/

    http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/revenue.cfm

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41134.pdf

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41393.pdf

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/17507

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  91. CM says:

    Another: http://www.jct.gov/x-4-05.pdf

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  92. CM says:

    Me:

    Can you link to analysis which demonstrates that these are direct cause-and-effect situations?

    Your links:

    Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

    Correlation isn’t causation. It’s not enough to just plot two lines and claim causation.
    A growing economy (with a growing population) will raise receipts automatically.

    Why do total tax revenues go down when income tax rates go up (and vice versa)?

    This again provides theory and claims but contains no actual analysis to demonstrate causation.
    It suggests a clear pattern (put taxes down, revenue goes up, or put taxes up, revenue goes down) but that’s not always what happens.

    Sowell: Higher tax rates don’t always add up to more revenue

    I think this is pretty reasonable. It’s easily the most reasonable Sowell piece I’ve seen. Of course there is still nothing to dispute the CBO’s assessment on which specific tax cuts lead to which specific losses in tax revenue.

    Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

    I’m not sure how cutting tax rates dramatically (from 69.13% to 28%) is too relevant in this case. That sort of cut isn’t even remotely close to the Bush cuts. At 69.13% I’m sure nobody would disagree that a shit-ton of potential tax revenue was lost because it simply wasn’t worth doing much to attract tax. The author also concedes: “Clearly, there is an optimal point below which taxes should not be cut…”. The CBO etc have used far more detailed analysis to determine that the Bush tax cuts did cost a lot of tax revenue. I.e. the cuts weren’t sufficient to alter behaviour in any meaningful way.

    Morning Bell: The Truth About Tax Cuts

    But Tresury revenue fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. In addition, growth was slower than expected. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/

    Not only were the Bush-era tax cuts a poor stimulus coming out of the 2001 recession, they did not lead to faster economic growth during the economic expansion leading up to the Great Recession.

    • Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

    • Growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion.

    • The tax cuts were supposed to encourage business investment, but nonresidential fixed investment increased a meager 2.1% annually–a third of the average increase and less than half that of the next poorest post-war increase in business investment on record.

    http://www.epi.org/page/-/EPI_PolicyMemorandum_184.pdf#page=3

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  93. Iconoclast says:

    Wow, talk about obtuse. Past, present, future – I either do it or I don’t.

    Yeah, there you go again with the conflations. You are simply wrong. Either you have done it or you have not. You claim to do X. I say that I do not recall any time in history where you did X. Another way of saying it is that I don’t see in history where you have done X. So I ask for an example of where you have done X. You respond by saying, “Okay, I’ll do X right now! There’s your ‘refutation’ to your claim that I have not done it in history.”

    It’s positively absurd that I have to break things down to this level for you, but I merely attribute that to your being deliberately obtuse.

    But, as explained and ignored, I don’t make a habit of going around actively saying I accept information from right-wing sources.

    Irrelevant. You could still have provided an historical example of where you did. You chose not to.

    You know full well that I didn’t just dismiss it with a ‘No’.

    Reading minds, again? Ironic, given your “He was an absolute master of telling people what they meant” snark.

    You did indeed respond with “No” all by itself in its own paragraph. Sure, you did explain why you didn’t accept it, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being a dismissal.

    Why would you engage in a discussion like this and not attempt to be objective?

    “Pontificate” is quite different from “be”.

    Why would it be any lower than someone working on behalf of an organisation that has policial bias as a mission statement?

    Why would someone potentially in a position of power be less professional than someone who is not so much? Perhaps is simply human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Personally I’d have to have pretty strong evidence of an ongoing pattern of corrupt professionals working for government to have that as my default setting/assumption, but then as I say, we’re obviously very different in this regard.

    Yes, we are. As I keep saying, you have no stake in this game. I do. For you, it’s merely a little intellectual puzzle. For me, it’s could very well be my livelihood. That’s one reason why your self-righteous sanctimony is such an unpleasant chore to deal with.

    I guess that’s possibly a result of being a professional who has worked for both public and private organisations for a number of years (and at the moment I do both and work hard at being ‘professional’).

    It looks like you’re trying to imply that I am not professional, that I am somehow lacking in professional experience. I mean, why else would our outlooks be so different if not for your “professionalism” and my alleged lack thereof?

    No, I am also a professional who has worked in both the public and private sectors and I also continue to work hard at being professional, without the scare quotes. Therefore, since we happen to both be in that particular boat, your claim that your viewpoint is the “result” of being in that boat is an epic fail, given that I am also in that boat, but have a decidedly different view. My view, again, is that power simply corrupts. I also have little reason to trust what Big Brother tells me must be so, especially with a liberal Democrat Administration running things.

    So how do the CBO get all that lost revenue?

    How Good Are the Government’s Deficit and Debt Projections and Should We Care?

    Are CBO Estimates Really The Gold Standard Of Accuracy?

    CBO Forecast Accuracy

    Role of the Congressional Budget Office, The Statement before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives

    Why the CBO’s Estimates Shouldn’t Count for Much

    The CBO’s Wrong More Than It’s Right

    Even a Democrat questioned the CBO’s accuracy and methods:
    New Assault on CBO’s Numbers and Transparency

    I have no idea how “the CBO get all that lost revenue”, and I am not at all convinced that “all that lost revenue” ever existed, except in the fertile imaginations of those who seek to demonize the very idea of reducing taxes, by insisting on using tax cuts as a scapegoat on which to lay the blame for all of our current difficulties.

    Nice. You’ve got this down to a fine art I see.

    No more so than you, although you are free to pretend otherwise.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.