It’s great that federal tax revenues are expected to be up about $250 billion over last year. President Bush should cheer the gains, but he should be careful in claiming credit, as he did Tuesday (see photo). The increase was primarily due to larger corporate profits, executive bonuses and stock market gains — which could reflect the growing income gap in America. And even with the extra revenue, the deficit this year is expected to be about $300 billion. That is less than earlier forecasts but not much to brag about.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
183 Comments
Ah yes, American “leadership” under President Bush: saving his hardest work efforts for deflecting the bucks that should stop at his desk and trying to claim credit for those that don’t.
That said, your last is the key: under President Bush, the government still spends a TON more than it brings in.
I’d also be interested in seeing a sector breakout of the corp profits, with an eye to seeing just how much of the increase in corp tax receipts is due to the defense/aerospace sector.
By the way, anybody have an idea on the over/under for President Bush’s August 2006 vacation?
4 weeks? 3? 5?
http://economistsview.typepad.com/
one view
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/has_the_budget_.html#comments
sorry try this
They need to stop spending so much. It isn’t going to help if the deficit shrinks to a lower number, it’s still a deficit and therefore still borrowed money and adds to our $6 trillion debt.
It is only in the BushdaBeast’s through the looking glass world that we can say “only” $300 billion. Can you imagine the GOP howling if Clinton had run such a deficit?
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
little o/t but in the same vein refer to Monday’s post.
He ran a historic high deficit and now this one is slightly less bad.
Oh, goodie!
Keep in mind, the numbers don’t reflect the billions being spent on the war or what they’re stealing from Social Security.
I think it’s safe to say this press conference marks the most recent in a long trend of ever lower marks for the modern GOP.
To wit: the administration obviously highballs the deficit estimate, then one year later the heir to Ronald Reagan holds a rah-rah-sis-boom-bah press conference to tout the strength of his fiscal policy based on the fact that the deficit is a little less than what he estimated.
*wink* *wink*, yeah that’ll fool ‘em.
heheheh
I’m thinking Ronnie may be pulling zombie 360’s like there’s no tomorrow in a memorial grave somewhere in a cemetery in California right now.
First the Bush administration’s foreign policy of pre-emptive war goes kaput, then actually disappears. Now the incumbent Republican president calls a public press conference and tries to claim a fiscal slam-dunk based on A *LOWER* *ESTIMATE* OF THE BUDGET DEFICIT.
Woo hoo!! What’s next, a push by Republicans for new affirmative action laws for illegal Iraqi immigrants?!?
The Iraq war is off budget, and supported through emergency appropriations, let’s factor those back in. Better yet, let’s pay for the war as we go.
Probably those Corporate profits that were repatriated at 5.25% tax rate, had a little to do with the revenues!
“The increase was primarily due to larger corporate profits, executive bonuses and stock market gains.”
I would add probably also due to runaway inflation. Compare retail prices of products you buy a lot and I suspect you will calculate a minimum of 15% to 20% inflationary increase per year.
I also suspect growth of all government levels at the expense of private business enterprise is also a big factor here.
In other words, NONE of the above factors reflect increased production of goods of the kind that makes average citizens’ lives better.
So, bottomline, the growth of federal revenues for the reasons reported is BAD NEWS FOR AMERICA.
Clinton ran a surplus during his terms in office so why can’t dumbass? The repukes love to spew about how much better they are than those godless liberals, well they can’t balance a checkbook. GOP is synominous for subaverage intellect
Oops, that is supposed to be ’synonymous’. I hit the post button before I could check my spelling. DOH!!
Holy Mackeral! Look where Darth Cheney is stashing his cash–short term muni bonds and European bonds.
The first means he thinks the interest rates are going to rise (because of the fourth highest deficit ever, perhaps?). The second means he thinks the dollar is going to tank against the Euro (because of trade deficit and massive debt).
Way to cheer for the home team, DICK.
And how much longer do the rest of you God-fearing right-wingers allow yerselves to get played for the suckers you are?
Here’s the link–
http://www.chris-floyd.com
Hey Joe,
Hate to correct you but the Debt as of tonight is 8.4 Trillion. That’s 12 Zeros behind it!
The estimated population of the United States is 299,085,449so each citizen’s share of this debt is $28,146.32.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of$1.71 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
OH YEA and on March 20th of this year, Congress and the President passed a new Debt celling of 9 TRILLION DOLLARS! THATS ROUGHLY 30 THOUSAND DOLLARS PER US CITIZEN!
That means between myself and my kids, our part of the debt is 120 Thousand!
I’m sorry to say this, but the Baby Boom generation has fucked mine and my kids generation…
Maybe they’re going to get serious with the budget. I read this morning the Army is going to end the sole source monopoly with Haliburton.
Tony,
Are you saying that Joe Williams made (GASP!) a FACTUAL ERROR?!
Joe Williams! AN ERROR IN FACT?!
No, it can’t be.
BTW, it’s not the Baby Boomers that screwed you and yours, it’s the Republicans, pure and simple.
If you want to see where the massive peace-time debt started, it started in 1980 with Ronald “Star Wars” Ray-gun, continued with George “Read my Lying Lips” H. W. Bush, went DOWN under Clinton who cut government spending by 10 percent, and then skyrocketed under G. W. “Cuckoo Bananas” Bush, who has increased spending 35 percent while slashing taxes for the rich.
Blame him and the idiots who voted for him.
They’re responsible for it.
Ok, ill give it to you, it is the Republicans but the majority its my parents generation i blame…
I blame them for alot. Low voter turn out among my generation is directly related to my parents.
In my house, of course we were very political. My friends, most of whom dont vote, weren’t taught at home that voting and participating was important. In fast most of my friends parents dont vote. The few that do vote dont even look at the issues, they vote republican because that’s what they are.
On more than one occasion i ask someone of my generation if they voted on ‘00 and in ‘04 and the ones that respond that they did vote, first thing they say, yea i voted for Bush, i ask them why, they said cause he was republican, i ask them why, they say because that’s who my parents voted for or something like because he republican and that’s what i am.
there is no thought about the entire process any more from the younger generations. Also, the younger generations are tired of fighting with the older on these issues. We figure that either someday its going to be so bad that we are going to take it all over and fix it or that simply all of the GOP, oldies are going to die off. (See Ken Lay’s Great Escape, lol)
I encourage everyone in this blog with kids to talk to them about politics and stay out of the mud slinging rederic. THAT GOES FOR BOTH SIDES. Let them decide on their own but talk to them, encourage them.
I’m not just talking about kids fresh out of high school, im talking bout your kids in the 20’s, heck even 30’s. pre-18 also would make a good conversation, get them ready for the ‘08 election. Also, show interest in the local elections, debate them on the facts…
Why do you think im here being a pain in your sides here? Along side my father, he and i dont agree on everything, but we do on most things… I have no problem disagreement, works well.
Come on Tony blaming the boomers for everything is the same as rush or ann coulter blaming everything on the evil liberals. That’s a victim mentality. Everybody in your generation vote? I don’t recall demonstrations, phone calls and what not from you age group supporting anything.
Good point Cheney – many of us in the Boomer generation voted for the President who balanced the budget; it was too many in Gen-X etc who supported BushdaBum.
Ben, the young demographic was the largest one supporting Kerry. If people 24-30 had been deciding the election, Kerry would be president now.
Sorry, but we cant blame youth for putting this preznit into office.
Not you of course, but I think we can blame the aging chicken hawks who thought they could refight the Viet Nam war, in a new location with a new generation.
Good point kfg – in many ways this reflected the split we had in the 70s when JFK/LBJ’s war was raging.
Tony,
I know you aren’t speaking to me. First, I’m one of the Boomers. Second, my parents talked to me about voting. I still remember my parents saying, “If you don’t vote, you don’t get to bitch.” I’ve voted in every general election since 1972, but admit I’ve missed a couple of primaries. And I didn’t even start to become politically aware until the 90’s. Not counting the Vietnam Era.
All 3 of my over-18 children are registered and active voters. We do talk politics. One of those 3 reads this blog on a fairly regular basis, and we all discuss politics when we get together. That’s once a week, folks. We practice family values. ;) This includes the new (registered-only Republican) son-in-laws. We’ve certainly made them take a hard look at things. :)
Perhaps you should talk to your friends and encourage them to vote, Tony. Offer to drive them to the polls, baby-sit their children to give them the time to go, whatever it takes to get them there. Then again, if they’re voting R, let them stay home and wonder. *grin*
Tony, I don’t have time to dig up the data, but I remember learning in Dave Farnsworth’s (most excellent) PoliSci 121 course (WSU) that political affiliation is most correlated positively with that of our parents. In other words, one’s political affiliation seems to be an imprinted behavior, kind of like one’s preference for, say, Velveeta cheese or Fords.
If your parents were Republicans, then the odds are good that you will be too – and that you will not necessarily understand why.
If this is correct, then what you’re saying is that, in order to guarantee a young voter’s “blank slate” or open mind, then it’s necessary for the parents to not be involved in politics at all.
That’s probably not very practical since it would imply that in order to guarantee political involvement in generation n we would have to do away with political involvement in generation (n – 1). That is, if we sum up political involvement by generation then the total must be zero.
It doesn’t take Leibnitz to see that we have a contradiction here.
In other words, I believe young people are going to have to just suck it up and think for themselves.
After all, that’s what many, many boomers did. [and yes, I am a boomer ;)]
Farnsworth is probably right. AT least through the early years. I voted republican without much thought about it until Ray-Gun and the right-wing Christian takeover of the party. The day I went Democrat was one of the proudest of my life. About that same time I joined a union which further helped my radicalization.So even if your parents are Republican (most of my family still is), there is hope that you’ll finally see the light.
My parents are best described as conservative Democrats who hate GW Bush with a passion (in the 2004 election, my mother acquired a W04 bumper sticker just so that she could stick it on a toilet) – yet they refuse to watch any news program except Fox.
They hated Nixon, laughed at Ford, supported Carter, tolerated Reagan (then grew to like him), disrespected 41, LOVED Clinton, and despise 43.
And yeah, I hold some very conservative opinions yet I always find myself somehow attracted to the Democrat candidate. Go figure.
My Mom has always been a Democrat, Dad is a registered repub that votes Democrat. He finally got tired of the BS. I voted republican until Ross came along. Nixon and Reagan before that. I think the only reason I voted for Carter was because Ford was such a futz.
Like Gittin Madder, I started voting for Democrats about the same time I started organizing for the union. Funny how that works.
It’s a shame that basic economics is not a required subject in schools. If it were we wouldn’t need to have this topic.
The fact that when taxes are reduced economic activity increases, and hence tax revenus, is well known and proven. Bush’s tax cut are doing exactly what they are suppose to do. This ain’t rocket science.
Yup LRB the greedy are getting greedier.
My family was never political. As far as I know I was the very first in ALL my family to vote.
I voted Reagan and a straight GOP ticket in 1984. I was young and dumb. I have never voted for a Republican since.
Now my entire family votes Democrat extended family too. The exception is my one hick aunt and her husband. They are big fans of O’reilly. They BOTH have shaken George bush’s hand.
They also no longer have a family. We no longer associate with them.
“I voted Reagan and a straight GOP ticket in 1984. I was young and dumb. I have never voted for a Republican since.”
The same laws of economics apply regardless of petty politics.
My 23 year old son has a great bumper sticker. Patriotic Stars and Stripes motif. “Stewart/Colbert 08″. (No, he doesn’t live in Kansas.)
Get over yourself LRB. That last from you made no sense.
“Laws of economics”
He who has the gold makes the rules LRB?
Thanks….no. That may be the way things are. It aint the way they should be.
heartlander
find out where he got that sticker, i want one…
But i would alter it a bit….
Stewert / Mencia
That would be a good couple…
“Thanks….no. That may be the way things are. It aint the way they should be.”
We live in a world of the way things are. We need to embrace that.
For example, we will not ever create an alternative to our current energy mess if we violate the laws of economics. Any solution must be economically feasible.
In the real world wishing for something to be so doesn’t make it happen. Regardless of how hard you want it.
Back to this subject. Bush was right in the fact that a tax cut will stimulate economic growth. This is not “magic”.
Economic growth?
Uh yeah….for the investor class. Pretty much everybody else left out.
“We live in a world of the way things are, we need to embrace that”
Um, no. We don’t. We need to change it. We need to fight it.
LRB, ok LRB
“Back to this subject. Bush was right in the fact that a tax cut will stimulate economic growth. This is not “magic”.”
WHAT, ARE YOU NUTS!
How is taking money out of the lower classes and cutting taxes for the upper classes stimulating the economy? Its taken him 5 years for the economy to do anything?
Heck Clinton did it in 5 months. Hate to break it to you, the rich just stash their millions away in off shore bank accounts rather than spending it.
The lower classes who live pay check to pay check tend to spend money a whole lot faster and in greater amounts.
If you split up a trillion dollars among the top 1%, i bet you not more than 5% actually makes it back to the economy.
If you take that same trillion and split it among the lowest income, ill bet you 99.999% of that money makes it back into the economy…
Bush’s tax cuts havnt done anything for me… I dont buy stocks so that one doesnt help.. I dont make a billion dollars a year, that doesnt help… hum… so how is it helping me?
LRB, tax cuts with spending increases is like having your personal income reduced, and improving your lifestyle by using credit cards to pay for it. You can make mimum payments, to cover interest charges, but eventually you have to repay the principal, particularly when the new bankruptcy law doesn’t allow you to foist your debt burden on your lenders.
A community can be low-tax and attract businesses and people–for a time. But water and sewer lines and roads come into play: the costs are not just for new extensions in the former-countryside-cum-suburbs, but older conduits must be enlarged to generate new transport capacity. So taxes must be raised to pay for them. Most rapidly expanding communities are attracting a lot of twentysomethings. They become thirtysomething parents of kids who need new schools. The older populace, whose kids graduated 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago, are required to pay for the education of the newcomers’ children. So their property taxes must be raised. You can be temporarily low-tax. But if you try to do it long-term, you have crappy infrastructure, and become very unattractive, thus curtailing continued growth.
This isn’t rocket science.
“Um, no. We don’t. We need to change it. We need to fight it.”
—
“Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”
“What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.
“Those you see over there,” replied his master, “with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.”
“Take care, sir,” cried Sancho. “Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone.”
— The Ingenious Knight of La Mancha, Cervantes
“Bush’s tax cuts havnt done anything for me… I dont buy stocks so that one doesnt help.. I dont make a billion dollars a year, that doesnt help… hum… so how is it helping me?”
The US unemployment rate is now 4.6%
Ben Huie has talked about windfarm electricity generation. Wichita, as a rural-refugee center, uses industrial production to convert agrarians to urban/suburbanites. Cheap energy is a strong draw for industries. Maybe windfarms surrounding Wichita would be a good idea.
“LRB, tax cuts with spending increases is like having your personal income reduced, and improving your lifestyle by using credit cards to pay for it. ”
How is the government spending your money better for you than you spending it yourself?
How very “inventive” of you LRB!
Not your first piece of theatre.
You have a pattern of re posting others posts. You augment that with cut and paste.
What little comes from you is inflammatory and not backed up.
Tony and Heart put real questions to you. I did too. Why not respond to them instead of your creative cut and paste?
The “phantom” “you can’t put me in a box” thing is getting a little tiresome.
You are laisez faire as to economics LRB. That about right?
Hey if you won’t take a position I’ll put you in one.
I don’t mean to be inflammatory, but when I hear someone suggesting that we can change the laws of supply and demand because they wish it to be so very, very hard, I can only stand in awe.
How does one resond to such a post How do you argue the Earth is not flat? How do you try and describe color to a blind man?
But to be truthful, I can’t believe that these poster were actually serious to begin with. Nobody’s that naive, right?
“Unemployment is at 4.6%”
Uh huh….
OLD trick that.
Those figures come from those collecting unemployment compensation. The actual unemployment or under employment figures are significantly larger.
“Hey if you won’t take a position I’ll put you in one.”
That’s the normal liberal response.
I’m not a conservative. I’m not a libertarian. I am certainly no liberal.
I’m a progressive. But I also realize the laws of economics is inescapable.
“OLD trick that.”
Yup, that old trick of using facts.
My bad.
And our point, The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 — the Lowest Since 1969
I dont remember clinton giving huge corporate tax breaks to get to that point…
Perhaps if you shared the “laws of economics” according to LRB?
Sorry, I couldn’t wait.
Probably the laws of economics are wrong when they favor the accumulation of wealth to those who already have it at the expense AND exploitation of those who do not.
“Perhaps if you shared the “laws of economics” according to LRB?”
Sure. Start here.
http://www.accaglobal.com/publications/studentaccountant/43892
This is a good introduction.
“Probably the laws of economics are wrong when they favor the accumulation of wealth to those who already have it at the expense AND exploitation of those who do not.”
Socialism have never worked. It isn’t working now. It is doubtful it will work in the future.
Example: Compare life in North and South Korea.
Oh, we should be so grateful for progessive thinking!!!
Well, maybe not.
Sorry, that should have been “progressive” thinking.
“And our point, The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 — the Lowest Since 1969
I dont remember clinton giving huge corporate tax breaks to get to that point…”
President Clinton was too busy having “Little Bill” serviced in the Oval Office to do much to harm the economy.
But we are now living in a post 9/11 world. Give President Bush credit for this economic recovery. Bash him for things he actually messed up on. But the economy is not one of them.
I’ll read your links later LRB.
Many questions have been asked of you. But you always go to links or theatrics. Why is that? Do you have no mind of your own? Are your posts based mostly on the posts of others and your links or do you have something of your own to say?
When you first posted LRB I called you interesting. But really you aren’t anymore.
You won’t be until you quit with the cut and paste, repost, and wild assertions.
Most favored nation trading status with China.
Pursuit of Cafta even after the disaster of Nafta.
Open borders and amnesty.
Well LRB from where I sit bush has fucked up the economy and maybe permanently.
Now you may sit in a more priviledged position. But then that would say much about your embrace of bush wouldn’t it?
Ummm…. LRB, go back and check the facts…
Little Bill only got serviced very few times and im dam proud of him for it…
Check out the stats, first president in years to balance the budge, first president to cut spending, did numerous things around the world to make the US better in the worlds eyes…
Come on, give the guy some credit.
I fault Bush on so many things but i guess still, the #1 thing i fault him on is illegal invasion of Iraq. #2 is letting Bin Laden get away than #3 is his tax cuts for the rich…
I have found it to be very difficult having sane conversations with liberals. If you disagree with them the normal response is ad hominem attacks.
For example: I point out that tax cuts stimilate economic growth – which is what we are seeing. For this benign assertion, one that is based upon fact and not opinion, I have been labeled, a republican, an evil investor, an enemy of the working man, etc.
But this situation is actually no different than most other blogs and forums populated with liberals democratic underground, moveon, et al). So to avoid personal attacks, I have found it best to refute an argument as simply as possible by using facts. The more I try to reason the more I get attacked. But I’m a tough old bird and that doesn’t bother me.
Oh also LRB…
What do you propose our children do about the 8.4 trillion and rising debt?
What do our children do about the new dislike the entire world has toward us?
What are our children going to do about the occupation in Iraq?
What are they going to do to fix the Bush Fuckups? Because i will bet you one thing, they will still be around here when my kids grow up…
“Pursuit of Cafta even after the disaster of Nafta..”
Free trade is always a good thing. If you ever traveled to Mexico 10 years ago and go there now, Chihuahua for example, you would see the effects of NAFTA. New schools and Universities, Shopping centers, Car dealerships, Home Depots, etc. Before that they had street beggars at every corner.
I disputed and qualified your claims as to “economic growth” LRB. You did not answer back
Hey TONY?
This LRB arrived on the blog calling for the editors of the New York Times to be dragged into the street and shot. Shortly after, LRB called itself a “progressive”
RD quite rightly asked, ” A progressive what?”
So your position LRB is to bring the American standard of living down to the Mexican standard of living?
“Free trade is always a good thing”
Oh? So your position is that American workers must live down to the status of 3rd world workers and that it is inherently good that cheaper is better and that it’s ok for a nation to be dependent on foreign nations for its manufacturing needs?
Oh, so basically what ur saying is that he has no thought of what consequences our decisions have on our children?
Question LRB,
How long can you live off of your credit cards?
How long till they come and repossess your house and your car?
How long can this country continue to amass massive debts and owe China Trillions of dollars? When will we owe more money and pay more than 50% of our national budget on interest payments to the debt?
You preach that bushdabum’s cutting taxes was the best thing since sliced bread. What bout paying off or down the debt? get rid of the debt, you get rid of the Debt payments and interest payments. Therefor you can cut taxes.
Does that sound like a better plan?
I read LRBs link.
LRB is not a Republican or a Libertarian. LRB is about one and ONLY one thing.
Money.
LRB you are not intellectually honest. You post reposts and links and the occasionally outrageous diatribe.
You CAN keep doing that. I for one am no longer interested.
JD,
Just saw ur post, figured id check out those links… You have to wonder what LRB’s goals here are? Is he trying to turn us into money hungry republicans?
We have been a socialist/ communist nation for a long time. Ancient feudalism in modern garb. Socialize the risks/costs, privatize the gain. What do you think it means when we “project power” by using the military to “establish a presence” across the globe?
As for tax cuts, EVERYBODY IS FOR THEM, IF YOU CAN DO THIS WITHOUT PILING UP DEBT. Because when America piles up debt, one of two things must happen: A. Huge tax increases must occur down the road, or B. You sell debt to foreigners, who use their lender-status to buy up America’s assets, such as factories and land.
Did I miss something? NAFTA, CAFTA, and PTS for China was from Bush? That’s all Clinton dudes.
He balance the budget and cut spending? No he didn’t, Congress did.
Congress holds the purse strings, not the President. The President can advocate for a certain budget and spending perposal, but it comes down to Congress. Without Congress passing their measures the President wouldn’t have anything.
*Shakes Head* You guys give too much credit to Presidents. Like they are some kind of authoritarian King and responsible for everything the government does. Next time look towards your Congressional Members. They hold more power on Domestic issues. On Foriegn Policy, look towards the President. Domestic policy, look towards Congress.
The suppose balance budget and surplus happen during the Dot Com Boom years, where corporation and wealthy rich investors from capital gains were pouring in money into the treasury to pay taxes. People like Ken Lay is responsible for that. But it was a bubble economy dazzled with stock and corporate scams. The government got their take out of it, just like the rich wealthy people and the overnight dot com millionaires did.
The bubble popped and the scams got busted and stopped. Government income dropped dramatically just like everybody’s portfolio did. We went back to the invisible hand of the market economy post bubble and scam. This was in 2000. The surplus and balance budget wouldn’t last and it didn’t. 2001 showed up and the treasury fell short. Bush gets blamed (for political purposes). I’ll be fair. Clinton shouldn’t get blamed either. Congress gets blamed because they should balance the budget every year, but they don’t.
“I disputed and qualified your claims as to “economic growth” LRB. You did not answer back”
All you need do is look at the GDP figures for the past quarter.
“So your position LRB is to bring the American standard of living down to the Mexican standard of living?”
No, but rather help bring the Mexican standard of living up to ours.
LRB”Free trade is always a good thing.”
No it’s not. Not when it brings down the workers in this country. Because of free trade, manufacturiong jobs are fleeing this country like rats deserting a sinking ship. What’s left for the average worker are service jobs, which generally pay less in wages.
Economic growth is up this quarter, however, coupled with the gigantic national debt bush has saddled the American people with, it hardly dents the problem.
Cutting taxes is not the answer, and you can believe in it all you want. It won’t make it right. The growth we are seeing is not due to lower taxes, as you and bush would have us believe. It is mainly due to the war effort, the jobs created by the distruction of New Orleans and general business patterns.
Taxes need to be raised, and loop holes closed in order to get a handle on the deficit. We also need to get out of Iraq and start doing what needs to be done to protect our borders. 100 billion a year on a war that should never have happened is ridiculous.
Clinton years had a republican dominated congressional branch, Bush yrs. have a republican dominated congress. Clinton yrs. saw a reduction in the deficit, Bush yrs. an astronomical increase. How can you say congress made the difference.
Because Steve! Republicans had a Republican President and they knew Bush would just pass anything they want. So here comes the earmarks, pork, increase government employment, and war.
Bush has not vetoed a bill, which is unprecedented. Congress knows it and so they know they can get away with alot.
It’s like a parent never disiplining their children. They will become spoiled. So here comes Spoiled Congress. Democrats in Congress are the worse in their spending habits of Pork. Robert Byrd is legendary and has the title “King of Pork” for West Virginia where every building and road and monument is names after the Democrat Senator. Does it help WV? It continues to be one of the poorest states in the USA and is the only state to lose population. Go figure! His Democrat House counterpart Alan Mollohan is the House’s King of Pork.
Although I’m ashamed the Republicans have squandered the surpluses and abandon their success of balancing the budget, I wouldn’t want the Democrats to take back over the Congress, especially if we had a Democrat President along with it. You will see deficits in the trillions.
“Taxes need to be raised,…”
Feel free to send in as much as you like. Nobody is stopping you.
But I bet you mean *other* people should pay more taxes, right?
Regarding free trade …
There are two people stuck on a desert island. One is named Robinson and the other is named Friday. On this island each person needs a new hut to sleep in each night and two fish to eat.
Robinson is good at building huts but is not a good fisherman. He can build a new hut in 4 hours, but it takes him 4 hours to catch each fish. Therefore his total day is 12 hrs long.
Friday is a good fisherman, but terrible at building huts. He can catch a fish in 2 hours but it takes hime 8 hours to build a hut.
Robinson and Friday decide to trade upon what each other does best. Robinson will make a hut for Friday at a cost of two fish. Friday will supply two fish to Robinson in exchange for a hut.
Now Robinson builds two huts per day. One for himeself and one for Friday. Two huts times four hours per hut is a total work day of 8 hours.
Friday now fishes for four fish each day. Two for himself and two for Robinson. Four fish times 2 hours per fish is a total work day of 8 hours.
By trading what use to take each man 12 hours they can now do in 8.
You non-economic types will always complain about the loss of jobs but I never hear you complain about the low prices you pay for everything in your life. If a person in China is willing to make your shoes for $0.45 why shouldn’t he? Both of you will benefit for it.
Non-economic types? LRB, are you claiming that YOU are an economist? The voodoo economics that Bush has implemented just doesn’t work in the long run. It didn’t work under Reagan, it isn’t going to work now. All that results from the tax cuts for primarily the rich is that the rich get richer and the deficit increases. How is that a good economic situation?
It worked under Reagan and it is working now. All you need do is look at the data.
It’s just Econ 101 and not rocket science.
Look at what happened in Ireland since they reduced corporate and personal income tax rates in the 1980’s.
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pd062601c.html
Ireland now has to import worked for all their jobs. So do we.
The actual numbers are important – from LRBs link:
“reductions in personal tax rates from 65 percent to 42 percent,”
Yes, dropping from high to moderate is a good thing. Taking two aspirin for a headache is also often a good thing. However, going overboard is not. The Laffer curve has an inflection point; revenues go down after that is crossed – in either direction.
I guess you could say it worked under Reagan if you think a HUGE Federal deficit is okay. I do not. Voodoo economics isn’t econ 101, it’s proof that a few people want to control the masses. That sounds alot like corporatism/fascism to me. What’s next, concentration camps? Wnat to start rounding up the poor?
I dont know about the rest of you but im giving up on LRB.
He will never change my mind and we wont change his…
LRB, I would how ever like for you to answer my earlier post:
Question LRB,
How long can you live off of your credit cards?
How long till they come and repossess your house and your car?
How long can this country continue to amass massive debts and owe China Trillions of dollars? When will we owe more money and pay more than 50% of our national budget on interest payments to the debt?
You preach that bushdabum’s cutting taxes was the best thing since sliced bread. What bout paying off or down the debt? get rid of the debt, you get rid of the Debt payments and interest payments. Therefor you can cut taxes.
Does that sound like a better plan?
Posted by: Tony | July 13, 2006 at 12:57 AM
“Question LRB, …”
If you are so worried out the federal deficit are you sending in more money each month than you should? If not, why not?
Also, what is the federal deficit as a ratio of the GDP. What was that in 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005?
Typical response from LRB – he wants to run deficits and have others of us support him.
As for the ratio in 1995 we were in surplus.
“Typical response from LRB – he wants to run deficits and have others of us support him.
As for the ratio in 1995 we were in surplus.”
1. Do you pay cash for your cars and your home? Why not?
2. We are in a war with Al Qaeda in 2005. Clinton was in a war with his glands in 1995. The situation is not the same.
Is this whole Aggressive attitude by the Bush administration actually a “war”? Many of us do not think so. We see the tragedy of 9-11 being used to further the Neocons ambition of world domination. Stop using the “war” as an excuse for everything.
“Is this whole Aggressive attitude by the Bush administration actually a “war”? Many of us do not think so. We see the tragedy of 9-11 being used to further the Neocons ambition of world domination. Stop using the “war” as an excuse for everything.”
It’s a war.
I just hope it will not take the loss of one of your loved ones by a terrorist act to wake you up.
You are hopelessly deluded LRB.
You probably just love the smear, fear and queers Republican lies campaigns.
“You are hopelessly deluded LRB.
You probably just love the smear, fear and queers Republican lies campaigns.”
I’m not a republican. I don’t believe in their agenda. But, please continue …
You obviously believe in their “economic” plan and aggressive military program. You may claim another party affiliation, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck………………….
“You obviously believe in their “economic” plan and aggressive military program. You may claim another party affiliation, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck………………….”
Do I believe lowering taxes increases economic activity? Yes, I am guilty of that. Do I also believe Al Qaeda should be made dead by our military. Yup, guilty as well.
Do I believe in faith based initiatives, bans on gay marriage, allowing illegal aliens free access to the US, a cowboy foreign policy, reducing assistance to the poor, etc. etc.? Nope, that must be someone else.
LRB – your analogy with buying a car or house on credit is flawed. We are running our daily operations on credit. Just as with an individual running ever deeper into debt that is a recipe for disaster. Simple Econ 101.
Econ 101
The government is not an individual. The dynamics are not the same.
I agree, LRB, the dynamics are not the same. For instance, the government can print more money lawfully while the DoJ will stop by your home if you as a citizen print money.
One thing I’ve never understood about the deficit as a share of GDP. Why GDP?
Shouldn’t the correct denominator be tax receipts instead of GDP?
I mean, yeah the dynamics aren’t the same, but the deficit as a share of GDP is grossly misleading. What you’re really trying to show is that the defict as a share of income is manageable if growing under Bush. But national income is an economic construct that is not equivalent to personal income.
In other words, some things ARE comparable. If we were honest about the deficit, we’d be far more interested in it’s size relative to our national *tax* income.
Don’t bother to argue with LRB, folks.
Her mind is made up and won’t be changed by mere evidence.
I love the way she talks about “economic laws” as if the system we have is natural and inevitable like Newtonian physics.
The fact is that we’re subsidizing oil every time we send our military to the mid-east, which we’ve been doing on a regular basis since Ronald ReaGUN.
The fact is we subsidize the car and people who make them every time we pave a road instead of funding mass transit.
The concept that the status quo cannot be changed because it’s based on “economic law” is a childish fantasy.
And one more thing, why did productivity and investment go up and unemployment go down when Clinton-Gore RAISED TAXES ON THE RICH?
Just wondering . . .
“Don’t bother to argue with LRB, folks.”
1. I keep on refuting foolish argument with those pesky facts.
My bad.
“And one more thing, why did productivity and investment go up and unemployment go down when Clinton-Gore RAISED TAXES ON THE RICH?
Just wondering . . .”
because Clinton’s economy was nothing more than a internet version of the Tulip craze.
In Clinton’s economy a company like Pets.com could have a larger market capitalization than General Motors.
I am all in favor of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. That’s the Progressive’s solution.
But noboy asked what my solution would be. They just automatically knee-jerked into a Pavlovian anti-Bush rant at the sight of having someone disagree with them.
In this way liberals are as predictable as the sunrise.
Wrong, LRB.
Paper capitalization on the NASDAQ etc. doesn’t explain the balanced budget, productivity, and historical low unemployment.
Investing in Pets.com should HURT the economy, not help it. And the bad effects should be immediate.
With the Bush economy, we get the illusion of wealth. He’s spending like a drunken sailor with a stolen credit card.
If I maxed out every line of credit I could find, I could live like Dick Cheney too.
For awhile . . .
We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do the right thing. We just need leaders who do what it takes to balance the budget.
People like Clinton-Gore.
It’s not the constitution that needs to be changed. It’s the leadership in the White House.
“People like Clinton-Gore.”
Why not just elect Penthouse Magazine’s Bob Guccione or Hustler’s Larry Flint to office? Either prpbably has a more accurate moral compass than Bill “Hey Baby” Clinton.
LRB is an obvious Clinton-hater. Could is be becuase she is repressed in some Freudian way?
You haven’t refuted ONE argument with facts, only with voodoo economics.
Why not just elect Penthouse Magazine’s Bob Guccione or Hustler’s Larry Flint to office? Either probably has a more accurate moral compass than Bill “Hey Baby” Clinton
What does morality have to do with balancing the budget?
LRB is 100% correct about the clinton “economic miracle”, it was a fraud. I could write a book about the statistical fraud regarding economic numbers but suffice it to say that our government has upwards of 44 TRILLION dollars worth of unfunded liabilities.
Everyone should look at where cheney is investing his fortune. The endgame is hyperinflation, a collapse of the currency and a depression that will dwarf that of the 1930’s.
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!
I have no respect for Bill Clinton. While I disagree with Hillary’s politics, I have a lot of resect for her. Living all these years with Mr. Trigid while resisting the urge to throw a toaster into his bathwater is high on my list.
Al Gore is a phoney. Nobody seems to notice that while he’s now pretending to have single-handedly invented environmentalism, his record as Vice President includes voting against the Kyoto treaty.
“What does morality have to do with balancing the budget?”
Absolutely nothing. If you want to beatify that Caligula from Arkansas that is your right. Personally I wouldn’t trust him to watch my kids for an hour.
Where’s the fraud Mr.Santiago or is it because you said so.Let’s see how much fun the next couple of years are going to be with the housing bubble unwinding.
LRB personally I think Bush is a mass murderer but that’s just my opinion.
Reality check time …
There will not be a crash of the housing market. The demand housing is increasing faster than the supply of new housing.
There will not be a 1930’s style German hyper-inflation. We have a central banking system and which controls the money supply.
What we could have is a return to Carter era interest rates. Mortgages at 20.5%
Another point. The federal debt, as a unintended consequence, is keeping China in check as a expansionist power. The Chinese are buying our treasury notes as fast as they can. After all, what are they going to do with all the money we send them – wallpaper their “The East is Red – Factory #2811″ board room with dollar bills?
If China were to invade Taiwan what would prevent the US responding by saying, “Ok, you’ve got Taiwan. Thanks for paying off our national debt” by nationalizing the Chinese owned US paper?
Umm LRB, it is the central bank that is causing the problems via their ever increasing creation of fiat money! The crooks have even stopped reporting M because they have been so profligate in their evil and nonsense. Hyperinflation and a bursting of the housing bubble are certain!
By: Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.
– Posted Thursday, 13 July 2006
In recent weeks, as the word “stagflation” has made a few appearances on the national media stage, many bullish skeptics, such as CNBC’s Steve Liesman, have downplayed the current “mini” stagflation with contrasts to the “real” variety of the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Such confidence however fails to recognize that we now measure economic activity and inflation with very different yardsticks than we did when Disco Duck topped the charts and Jimmy Carter wore sweaters. In reality, changes in the methodologies mean that the statistics bear as much resemblance as an 8-track to an iPod, and only serve to obscure the genuine threat we now face.
In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, “core CPI” included housing prices, and the basket was neither altered to reflect substitutions (in which stuff that had gone up in price is replaced by stuff that did not), nor were prices hedonically adjusted (a 5% increase transformed into a 3% decrease based on a subjective assessment of quality improvement). Similarly, changes have hit GDP assessments. For instance, 25 years ago GDP was calculated using a more honest deflator; business fixed investment expenditures were not hedonically adjusted ($5 billion spent on computers recorded as $50 billion, as computing power increased by a factor of 10 over the benchmark year), and phantom payments were not included (imputed income on owner-occupied housing counted as rents, or free checking accounts recorded as interest payments).
In addition, comparisons using “core” inflation numbers, which was the case in Liesman’s example, leave out energy prices, which have been particularly effected by the current round of inflation, and food, which in my opinion is about to follow in energy’s footsteps. In fact, as I write this commentary, crude oil prices are up almost three dollars per barrel today alone, hitting a new record high just shy of $78 dollars a barrel. In the last five years, crude oil prices have risen more than four-fold, with no end to the rally anywhere in sight.
Over the years, the government has managed to “solve” economic problems merely by changing the way they are measured. By re-jiggering the manner in which CPI and GDP are calculated, the government misrepresents the true health of the economy, making it easier for incumbents to be re-elected. President Bush demonstrated this to perfection in his televised speech earlier this week. Despite a building sense among the population that the economy is shaky, the President was able to effectively say, “What are you complaining about, look how good you have it? Inflation is just 2.5% and the economy is growing at 4% per year. Why back in the seventies and eighties people had to struggle with 8% – 10% inflation and 1%- 2% growth.” The reality is that today’s generation is experiencing similar struggles.
Despite the rosy numbers, today the typical American family pays for groceries with a Visa card, utilities with a home equity loan, has a six-year loan on their SUV, has no savings, and has both parents working just to keep the family one-step ahead of its creditors. With all this supposed non-inflationary economic growth, why do Americans borrow to pay for everyday necessities which used to be easily financed from incomes, and why has a nation of savers been transformed into one of debtors?
From the government’s perspective, all the misrepresentations are part of a giant confidence game that it meant to keep all the marks, most of them foreign, from wising up. A fiat-based monetary system only functions as long as confidence is maintained. The minute it’s lost, the whole scheme implodes. Since confidence is the only thing holding up the U.S. dollar, and by extension the entire U.S. economy, maintaining that confidence is the government’s highest priority. If elected officials and central bankers have to obfuscate a bit to do it, so be it.http://news.goldseek.com/EuroCapital/1152809674.php
V.L.R.B!!!
LRB your 12:58 post is this stuff in Revelations or what? Is this the current right wing mantra?Google housing + 1929 look at the similarities.Check out calculated risks blog for starters. If you like I’ll point allot of links and info your way.
.morg,
here you go regarding clinton’s fraudulent “economic miracle”; it was based on rubin and greenshmuck’s cretid expansuion rather than healthy growth or productivity!
BEST OF BILL BUCKLER
October 6, 2003
The world has still not grasped the sheer size of what happened in the US between 1995 and 2001, preferring not to face the fact that the immense stock market bubble was the direct result of an even more immense bout of credit expansion. This expansion drew towards the US a gigantic amount of money from all over the world. Everyone wanted to profit from the blow-off. These cumulative money flows into the US since the bubble began in 1995, came close to $US 4.1 TRILLION. That was 68% of the $US 6 TRILLION which the rest of the world sent to the US Imperium over the last half (50 years) of the twentieth century.
In five short years, $US 4.1 TRILLION flowed into the US to be added to the $US 1.9 TRILLION in overseas capital already there. The $US has been going DOWN since early 2002. So far, foreign investors in the US have been tricked, cajoled, inveigled, and/or threatened into standing pat. Should this new “policy” of flexible currencies produce a stampede for the exits, the US Dollar and US stock and bond markets face a potential catastrophe.
Global Double Jeopardy:
Rebecca McCaughrin, writing for Morgan Stanley, has asked this question: “Which markets are liquid and large enough to support the $US 9.1 TRILLION of foreign capital that comprises the US net liabilities position?” Note the bland statement that US external debt is a NET $US 9.1 TRILLION.
Foreigners own $US 6 TRILLION of investments inside the US. The US has a NET foreign liability of $US 9.1 TRILLION. Add these foreign-owned US assets and this net US foreign liability together and the result is $US 15.1 TRILLION. The G-7 has now given its official seal of approval on “currency flexibility” – read a FALLING US Dollar. A foreign investor withdrawal from the $US could devastate the global financial system in a week.
What Is The US Doing To Address This Situation?
US second quarter GDP (+3.1%) was underpinned by a 13.7% increase in US defence spending, a 13.6% jump in US household home mortgage debt, a 10.9% jump in total household debt, and a 10.1% increase in total federal government debt. What is the US doing? It is ratcheting UP its borrowing.
Inside The Real US Economy:
The overall US capacity utilization rate held steady at 74.6% in August, while the manufacturing rate fell two-tenths to 72.7%, just above the 20-year low of 72.5% seen in May. Since May, the US machine park which produces the economic goods that consumers consume has managed to add 0.2% to its utilisation rate to climb to a still catastrophic 72.7%. Economically, this is the same as saying that nearly 30% of US factories and plants still stand idle. Most of the fresh credit money which the Fed is making available for Americans who want to borrow and spend is bypassing US industry. Instead, it is storming outside US borders, as can be seen from the second quarter US current account deficit which was up 13% year-on-year (y-o-y) to $US 138.7 Billion. These past four quarters have seen a US deficit of a $US 529 Billion.
The Federal Government Is Doing ALL It Can:
The US federal government reported a $US 76.5 Billion deficit for the MONTH of August. Total US federal government tax receipts have dropped 8.3% y-o-y to $US 124.6 Billion, while total spending jumped 6.4%. Year to date Tax receipts were down 4.2%, as federal spending surged 7.0%. Year to date individual tax receipts were down 4.2% and US corporate tax receipts dropped 13.5%.
The US federal deficit, which is now estimated to exceed the $US 600 Billion mark, and the federal debt, which now stands at $US 6.8 TRILLION, adds up to an utterly unviable internal US situation and a totally unacceptable global situation. On top of that, there is the problem of unfunded liabilities in the system. These exceed $US 44 TRILLION. The Treasury is faced with an insoluble dilemma. If it acts to cut its current expenditures back to its actual tax revenue, it would do much more than cancel President Bush’s Iraq escapade. It would also withdraw expenditures equal to about 6% of the US GDP. That would slam the entire US economy into a sudden and steep economic recession.
Not daring to do these things, the Treasury is grimly maintaining an outlook of “business as usual” and is continuing to inundate both the US financial system and the world with its debts.
In sum, the US Treasury has boxed itself in and doesn’t dare do anything other than go right on with its massive creation and selling of debt paper after which it spends these borrowed sums into circulation. The Federal Reserve, with its official interest rate already at 1% and destined to stay there as far ahead as the eye can see, sees itself in a position where it too can only add to the waves of new credit money.
These actions by Treasury and Fed are, especially when combined, an historically certain economic recipe for a CRASH in the value of Treasury’s debt paper brought about by much higher interest rates. And even with much higher US rates, the Fed’s part in the recipe will result in an assured CRASH in the international exchange value of the $US, simply because the Fed has been issuing too many for too long…..
One only has to look at a 10% global fall in the international value of the US Dollar to see what would happen. A 10% $US fall from present levels would hand foreign investors an additional loss of $US 1.5 TRILLION Dollars on their US assets. If foreign investors stand pat and take such a loss, it will have drastic financial effects on corporate as well as private balance sheets inside their own nations. This fact cannot be avoided by any amount of sophistry. NEVER has a more dire world wide situation existed.
The US Eggshell Economy:
The US economy is all shell with no yolk and very little white. Its fragility is enormous.
Since the beginning of 1998, total credit market borrowings (non-financial and financial) have surged 51% or $US 10.9 TRILLION — to $US 32.1 TRILLION. That means that US total debts now are equal to about 310% of the US GDP. That is bankruptcy territory. $US 10.9 TRILLION has been borrowed into existence and spent over just 5 and a half years. Now, only the DEBTS remain.
Ó 2003 – The Privateer
http://www.the-privateer.com
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Please,
I can “prove” Elvis and Bigfoot flew the planes into the WTC by using Google.
“Fiat” based money system – Gad how I love these “Da money ain’t backed by gold so it ain’t no durn good no more.” people. These are a members of the economic Flat Earth Society.
“Personally I would not trust him to watch my kids for an hour”
LRB I sincerely HOPE that you have not reproduced and been placed in charge of young impressionable minds. Truly I do.
for you LRB:
http://www.turoks.net/Cabana/PlasticJesus.htm
LRB – I bought a house when Carter was president – paid 9%, not the 20.5% you claim. If you paid 20.5 your credit must really be horrible.
Later, when Reagan was president, rates went up quite a bit.
BTW – that 9% was less than the 10% I had paid earlier when Ford was president.
“LRB I sincerely HOPE that you have not reproduced and been placed in charge of young impressionable minds. Truly I do.”
Thank you for the personal attack.
One more time …
—
I have found it to be very difficult having sane conversations with liberals. If you disagree with them the normal response is ad hominem attacks.
For example: I point out that tax cuts stimilate economic growth – which is what we are seeing. For this benign assertion, one that is based upon fact and not opinion, I have been labeled, a republican, an evil investor, an enemy of the working man, etc.
But this situation is actually no different than most other blogs and forums populated with liberals democratic underground, moveon, et al). So to avoid personal attacks, I have found it best to refute an argument as simply as possible by using facts. The more I try to reason the more I get attacked. But I’m a tough old bird and that doesn’t bother me.
Wow LRB that just brings a tear to my eye. But after listening to Rush coulter Hannity and the other wingnut talking heads you get what you pay for.As far as Clinton {The Clenis} after your 80 million dollar witch hunt do you think we would forget?The economy , it’s not great even after the tax cuts and years of wide open liquidity in the credit market.
“Wow LRB that just brings a tear to my eye. But after listening to Rush coulter Hannity and the other wingnut talking heads you get what you pay for.”
Well, then stop listening to them.
“As far as Clinton {The Clenis} after your 80 million dollar witch hunt do you think we would forget?”
We was disbarred for lying to a Grand Jury.
“The economy , it’s not great even after the tax cuts and years of wide open liquidity in the credit market.”
The economy is growing at a 5.6% annual rate. That’s very good.
In all of these posts, I still have yet to see LRB answer the question.
What are our children going to do with a 10 Trillion dollar debt?
How will our economy survive a debt that has debt payments over what it spends on every other category in government?
Currently the payments the treasury pays out in debt interest payments are around 400 Billion per year. In contrast the spending on the military is somewhere around 650 Billion and spending on the department of Education is somewhere around 75 Billion.
Tell me LRB why it is that its ok to keep cutting taxes, raising the debt only to have to borrow more money to pay the ever increasing debt payments?
(Also Note. Department of Ed funding was decreased this year from last. No child left behind my ASS.)
Whoops,
Fact Fix:
Department of Defence spends 550 Billion,
Health and Human Services spends 650 Billion…
Sorry, dyslexia strikes again…
LRB: 80 million and all you could get was a disbarment. No wonder osama got away. Anyway I am guessing your a supply sider. Watch Kudlow every day. Here’s my first rebuttal:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
“Tell me LRB why it is that its ok to keep cutting taxes, raising the debt only to have to borrow more money to pay the ever increasing debt payments?”
Because cutting taxes increases economic output. Increasing economic output increases tax revenue.
Increasing taxes decreases economic output. Decreasing economic output decreases tax revenue.
For example, let’s raise your tax rate to 75%. Now you have less than $100 to spend per month for clothes. This causes decreased sales at your clothing store. The clothing store then must reduce its sales force accordingly. Since these once employed people are now not working, the government has a reduction in tax revenue because of lost income tax reveue.
Your discussion has already lost any meaning. That’s because LRB is conflating “tax cuts” with “tax rate cuts.”
Rate cuts will stimulate the economy. Tax cuts will not necessarily stimulate the economy.
The Bush administration has cut taxes wherever possible; they have NOT concentrated on cutting tax rates exclusively.
Therefor you can’t use the Bush fiscal policy as evidence for the effect of tax cuts on GDP size. You’re also forgetting to account for the deficit-spending effect on GDP growth.
The Bush administration has never vetoed a spending bill, and every budget since 2000 has been a deficit budget. So you can’t validly conclude that, under Bush, “tax cuts have resulted in GDP growth.”
That’s neither necessarily false nor necessarily true. And that’s just another way of saying this is your opinion, LRB.
And LRB your 75% marginal rate is outrageous. The whole point of the Laffer curve is that the effect of tax rate cuts on federal tax receipts is relative. You’re using a 75% marginal rate is guaranteed to make your point, but your point isn’t worth a damn since marginal tax rates currently are below 40% in all cases.
You need to find that truth train again, the one you claim to always ride.
LRB, this is true… Your exact analogy goes back to my earlier point and subsequent discussion about the cutting of taxes for the upper classes vs the lower classes. (I think these threads were deleted in the Great Blog Crash of Yesterday).
Ok, let me rephrase my question than. Why is cutting taxes for the top 10% of Americans going to help the economy?
I could understand you saying, cutting taxes for the lowest 50% and have your theory make since.
The billionaire isn’t going to spend any more money anywhere, the money comes out of the economy and into the bank accounts of the rich.
I’m just not seeing it…
LRB – as pointed out above the Laffer Curve has a point at which further cuts do NOT stimulate activity and revenues. Econ 101.
LRB – you also ignored THESE facts:
“LRB – I bought a house when Carter was president – paid 9%, not the 20.5% you claim. If you paid 20.5 your credit must really be horrible.
Later, when Reagan was president, rates went up quite a bit.
Posted by: Ben Huie | July 13, 2006 at 02:06 PM
BTW – that 9% was less than the 10% I had paid earlier when Ford was president.”
“Rate cuts will stimulate the economy. Tax cuts will not necessarily stimulate the economy.”
A tax rate cut is a tax cut.
flike,
Did you mean to say that a cut in the interest rate by the fed will stimulate the economy?
V.L.R.B!!!
“LRB – I bought a house when Carter was president – paid 9%, not the 20.5% you claim. If you paid 20.5 your credit must really be horrible.
—
http://www.investmentu.com/bin/e/b/20050613A.gif
Carter pushed them up. Reagan and Volker brought hem down.
LRB?
Sweetness? If you don’t like personal attacks you are in the wrong forum.
I like my “tough old bird”well roasted.
I’ll stand by what I said. It grieves me that someone of you somewhat limited concern for your country and your fellow human being is in the position of parent.
“The billionaire isn’t going to spend any more money anywhere, the money comes out of the economy and into the bank accounts of the rich.
I’m just not seeing it…”
The tax cuts were aimed at small business owners.
But I guess anybody who makes more than you is rich and doesn’t deserve their wealth, right?
But a tax cut is not necessarily a tax rate cut.
‘These are impressive figures, but how much credit belongs to Mr Bush’s tax cuts? Fiscal loosening doubtless cushioned the 2001 recession and may have accelerated the subsequent recovery. But the tax cuts cannot be given all, or even much, of the credit for today’s strong revenues. Tax receipts often rise faster than the bean-counters expect during cyclical expansions. Since budget forecasting is more an art than a science, revenue “surprises” are surprisingly frequent.”
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_STVJTRP
8 under Ford, down to 7 under Carter then back up. Hit peak of 15 under Reagan.
Those are 10-years Treasuries; I don’t see the 20.5 mortgage you claim. Since you indicate that is what YOU paid then why is your credit rating so abysmal?
“Sweetness? If you don’t like personal attacks you are in the wrong forum.”
You liberals resort to personal attacks because your ideas are so easily refuted. I take it as a sign of defeat.
“Those are 10-years Treasuries; I don’t see the 20.5 mortgage you claim. Since you indicate that is what YOU paid then why is your credit rating so abysmal?”
Does it hurt to be that dumb?
Here’s the data.
http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/prime.asp
You go right ahead and take it that way LRB.
Liberals aren’t in power. And even when they are their ideals mostly get silenced becasuse of the operatives of corporate fascism like you.
That worm will turn by the way. When it does it is really gonna suck to be you.
So enjoy for now as I know you do your capacity to make subservient and miserable your fellow man.
You strike me as a woman who didn’t get where she is standing up. And now you need to FEEL self important to make up for it.
“Does it hurt to be that dumb?” – and YOU complain about ad hominum attacks. “You resort to personal attacks because your ideas are so easily refuted. I take it as a sign of defeat.”
The Prime Bank rate is a bit different from actual mortgage rates. In aprticular, I remember the lawsuits that were successfully brought against banks alleging that the posted Prime (which is NOT a market-set rate) was bogus. Big corporations were, in fact, paying wat below Prime.
“Does it hurt to be such a deadbeat and to have such lousy credit that you had to pay 20.5% to buy your slum?”
It’s worth pointing out that the average GDP growth for the first 21 quarters of the Clinton Administration was 3.5%, and for the same period in the current administration it is 2.8%.
Actually, it’s 2.75% for the past 5.25 years and the average annual growth rate for Clinton’s 8-years in office was 3.7%. If the OMB forecast turns out to be right – the average for Bush43’s will be only 2.9%. I do hope Mr. Goldberg realizes that 3.7 exceeds 2.9.
From angrybear blogspot 6-29-06
We’re dealing with a real head case here Ben.
She is real easy to judge others….but remains herself elusive.
She decries personal attacks….and then takes a shot at you because you poked a hole in her arguement and thus her ego.
SHe hangs out on one thread which she makes herself maven over. Wouldn’t want to post elsewhere I guess. She might accidentally reveal a chink in her armor…..or have to define herself by something besides others posts and the occasional (although cleverly posted) platitude.
Good points JR. Obviously a real deadbeat – how else to explain the outrageous interest rates she had to pay for a mortgage – more than twice what I paid!
Hehe . . . what we don’t get with all of LRB’s incredible superior tone are actual facts, despite her constantly telling us that all she uses are facts.
“For example, let’s raise your tax rate to 75%. Now you have less than . . . ” Hey, wait a minute, that’s not a fact. That’s a hypothetical situation.
This is a fact–Clinton-Gore raised taxes (over the spoiled baby squalling of every Republican in Congress) and they ended up with an average GDP growth rate (3.7) 27 percent higher than Bush’s after five years of tax cutting for the rich (2.8).
Now that’s a fact!
Thanks .morg.
BTW, not everybody that opposes you is a liberal. Your “know-it-all” tone even steams off Ian.
And nobody knows what the hell Ian is . . .
“operatives of corporate fascism like you.
That worm will turn by the way. When it does it is really gonna suck to be you.
So enjoy for now as I know you do your capacity to make subservient and miserable your fellow man.
You strike me as a woman who didn’t get where she is standing up. And now you need to FEEL self important to make up for it.”
Project much?
Bookworm – and if she REALLY understood the Laffer Curve she would understand that it is NOT monotonic. It has a peak – goes up for a while and then goes down. Lets see if I can pull this off with typing:
revenues raised on Y axis, rates on x axis
xx xx xx xx x________________________________
0 25 50 75 100
rates
Attempt at graph did not work – spaces ignored.
LRB – why did you pay more than twice as much for your mortgage than I did?
Lets just say this: That the economy has been going on a decent growth pace for the past 25 years. With the exception of a few hiccups, I think we rather weathered it quite well.
Although not all people can benefit and many had to change careers and loss income as a result, overall we aren’t in bad shape at all. Could be a lot worse. Just be happy we are all eating and not killing each other.
I hit a sore spot LRB?
I must have.
I got you off your game and back to your baser nature.
You know…..reposting others posts with your little shot thrown in.Whatsa matter LRB. I thought you were a tough old bird.
“LRB – why did you pay more than twice as much for your mortgage than I did?”
Where did I say what I paid for a mortgage?
I nominate LRB to the “Cut and Paste Hall of Fame”!!It is truly humbling to be in the shadow of such an incredible talent!
Phhffffffttttttt!!
“You strike me as a woman who didn’t get where she is standing up. And now you need to FEEL self important to make up for it.”
JR?! . . . what happened to the old JR, man, the “I’ve got your 6,” JR?
Is LRB a pain in the ass who doesn’t argue fairly? YES. In other words she’s only slightly more annoying than just about everybody else on this WEBlog.
That was a total cheap-shot. You know nothing about her other than a few posts.
Leave that for the conservatives. They have so much more practice at it than we do . . .
“Attempt at graph did not work – spaces ignored.”
How about this?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
The Laffer curve should be called the LAUGHTER curve. It’s already been discredited when Reagun ran the national debt to a then historical high up with his version of “voodoo economics.”
By the way, as a liberal, I apologize for JR’s comment. Cheap shots against a person’s gender are out of line and don’t reflect what liberals stand for.
Thank you Bookworm.
I realize that I’m an off note in this echo chamber of a forum. But I still wish to discuss differences of opinion. I also realize people tend to get wound up in the passions of the moment and will type things they would never say in person.
Relax book relaxYou’ve read me and know and clearly respect me a little. That means a lot to me.If you’ve read me any length of time at all you KNOW I’ll be as fair as my opponent will let me.
Cheap shot? Yeah. HOW cheap depends on how you read it. It COULD be a real cheap shot. How LRB takes it is more to do with LRB then me.
Hey and don’t apologize for me. I just saw that. This forum aint for the faint of heart. I KNOW from personal experience. And LRB can learn to take care of LRB.
Book? LRB is so far about as deep as a list of talking points and cutnpastes….that and the occasional outrageous rant or shot……usually when she gets challenged on something. I say LRB LIKES negative attention. I say she can do better.
There is a creativity that I have liked from the beginning.
I like to think I make any poster I engage a better poster. Anyways I like to try.
BUT
LRB is of an opposite politic from me. If you read this forum you know it gets nasty. I don’t ask anyone to pull any punches on me. And given the deep political divide and the fact that so much is at stake in the issues we debate I do not hold back much either.If I think I see weakness in LRB. I will attack that weakness. This aint a pillow fight.
Book my email is live. If you write to me I will explain the “cheap shot”.
Wonder what I missed while I was typing all this.
Back to the fray.
If you want to think happy thoughts … here you go.
We are on the threashold of WWIII. Budget deficits, the laffer curve, and how you feel about taxation will soon become meaningless.
Iran is being lured into a trap. Israel didn’t invade Gaza and Lebanon to rescue a few abducted soldiers. It’s to lure Iran and Syria into providing material support to Hizbollah. This act will be a prelude for a declaration of war with Iran and Syria. This will rid Syria of a base for insurgents to attack Iraq and will provide a clear pretext to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.
An astute assessment LRB.
I say Israel has gone too far. But clearly they have the leave. That would be bush’s fault.
I’m honestly never sure if we are holding Israels leash or they are holding ours.
WW3? I don’t know.
Here is how we get a thread about that LRB.
EAGLE EDITORS!!!!
If you are not planning a thread about the events in the mideast you should be!
The trap is set …
—
Iran warns Israel not to attack Syria
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday an Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a “fierce response,” state television reported.”If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in a telephone conversation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060713/ts_nm/mideast_ahmadinejad_dc
LRB,
I disagree with your take on the trickle down theory of econmics but I must say that your analysis of the mid-east situation is on point. Where has Ed been lately? I notice that my jew-gas is getting more costly by the day, damned zionists!!!!!
viva la raza Blanco!!!!
Good grief. No wonder Bush is president.
LOL
You don’t need 6 protection, you need 6 prescriptions.
If – IF – Iraq blows up into a general Middle East regional conflict, then I assure you that taxation will be Topic #1 on *every* agenda.
Tax rates won’t be heading down, either. Especially if any ME war spreads worldwide, and even for Bush.
LRB! It’s more of the same. Yeah! people call it WW3, but the conflict in the middle east always has been going on.
War and conflict is the way of life. When there is a short time of peace and a cease fire, that’s just a sign for them to reload. That’s about it.
This isn’t the 1st time for Israel and it won’t be the last.
Two things are diferent this time.
1. Iran is deveoping nukes and Isreal won’t accept that situation.
2. Any counter attack by Iran on Israel will make our defense treaty kick in.
In either case Iran loses it’s nuclear capability for a long time. Therefore this is in the strategic interest of the US and Iran’s neighbors. That makes it a slam dunk.
If Bush had had his way, and gotten rid of the Capital Gains tax, the reduction in his deficit wouldn’t have been nearly as great. Now the moron wants to take credit for it. I see the Markets, weren’t terribly impressed!
Steve: Bush only takes credit for all the bad things. Anything good or positive is considered dumb luck, coincidence, political conspriacy, or beyond his control.
When it’s a Democrat. The role is reversed.
LRB! You’re right. It’s a bit scary.
Israel is a nuclear nation. They will take the whole region, including themselves out with nukes before they give up Israel.
They feel they are on the right hand of God, so it’s a dangerous situation. That is why they retailiate with a vengence. They have nothing to lose but a small amount of land, and they will be damn to be removed from it.
Russia and China will not view an attack on Iran favorably and that is just on principle…………..
The muslim world might likely and justifiably fear that in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq that this is an all out assault on Islam. That brings the large muslim populations in Europe into play. Pakistan enters the picture…….
Which necessarily brings their mortal enemy India into the picture……….
Iraq may COMPLETELY blow up…………with us in the middle of it.
The US needs to rein in Israel and FAST.
So you’re arguing that our military expansion into Iran will *decrease* US tax rates, LRB?
Or have we stopped talking about tax rates now?
LRB- I don’t know if I agree with your analysis, but it is astute and I won’t disagree. I think there will be no resovement in the Middle East until there is a major confrontation, with a big winner , and a bigger loser. That probably will just restart the cycle again.Iran with nuclear weapons is a world away from Hussein having them. The world cannnot allow the Iranians to have the means to that end, IMHO.
Events are already spinning out of control. We are a verge of a nuclear war.
Danger Will Robinson it is, then.
Let me know when you want to talk about paying for wars. Grab Bush while you’re at it, ok?
Paying for war is only a side show compared to the rebuilding afterwards.
Ah, the rebuilding takes debt capacity. And that, my friend, will seal the deal on taxes.
Bond capacity to be accurate.
Anybody think this Israel/Iran/Lebonon, etc. deal has been planned all along?
I’ve heard some whispers… Gossip and conjecture only.
I dont think it was planned, just anticipated…
Could be, Tony. Definitely.
I see LRB’s point, you can go on ad infitum, buying your houses anc cars on credit, if the lenders will continue to let you use credit cards backed by your offspring! We’re at least charging now to our grandchildren.
Just read a poll think it was IPSo, democrats show a strong advantage in the coming Congressional Elections. Bush need to bring out Binnie, and soon!
If it was the same poll that I saw, the most remarkable aspect (to me) was that it was conducted right after President Bush had surreptitiously visited Baghdad, and also right after Zarqawi had been killed.
In other words, the president’s 36% approval rating in the poll was likely inflated.
But yeah, I agree: very interesting poll. If the Democrats can actually pull off nationalizing the election (or if any other way these poll results hold up until November) then in the last two years of his presidency Bush will probably more resemble cooked duck than lame duck.
With the Robinson and Friday analogy, one needs to add the inclusion of the indigent natives that will build the houses for a 1/4 of a fish, and put Robinson out of work.