Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[BuckNaked]

I am really not about going tit for your tat. However, I'd like to live in the ivory tower that you're residing in...so would many other American's whose jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries and those who have had to take on an extra job or two to make ends meet.

Free market and global economy - welcome to it!!

 

[Charade]

Sorry you're in a black hole, but the rest of the economy is humming along quite nicely, and has been for some time now.

Even if the economy in general is doing well, there will always be someone who's in black hole. Don't mean to be crass, but that's life.

 

[Charade]

I am really not about going tit for your tat. However, I'd like to live in the ivory tower that you're residing in...so would many other American's whose jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries and those who have had to take on an extra job or two to make ends meet.

BANG!!! What was that???? Just drive-by posting...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That's what Rush and Hannity told me.

Ohhh, snap!! I knew it!! Charade's busted, and I've got it down in black and white!!! Now watch as I point and laugh in a funny American way at the conservative that gets all of his news from American style talk show hosts!! Look everyone...look!!

 

[sodaseller]

How did he do that? The unemployment rate is hovering around 5 percent. The deficit is dropping pretty fast. Why? Increased revenue from the tax cuts. That's what Rush and Hannity told me.

And that's categorically false. A lie perpetrated to justify suppression of the sans cullotes

 

[BuckNaked]

And that's categorically false. A lie perpetrated to justify suppression of the sans cullotes

And you base your assertion on what exactly?

 

[wendy1974]

BANG!!! What was that???? Just drive-by posting...

Oh my, aren't you cute and witty and maybe just a wee bit

 

[sodaseller]

And you base your assertion on what exactly?

Actual reasoning. A foreign concept to the right.

 

[BuckNaked]

Actual reasoning. A foreign concept to the right.

So it isn't actually a fact, as you asserted, but rather your opinion.

 

[Charade]

And that's categorically false. A lie perpetrated to justify suppression of the sans cullotes

Umm.. could you please stop using those big words. I have to run a lot of your posts through a dictionary just to figure out what you're saying and to make sure you're not calling people names or something.

 

[BuckNaked]

Damn it Charade, we're suppressing the poor again, at least according to ss.

 

[Charade]

Oh my, aren't you cute and witty and maybe just a wee bit

Why yes I am as matter of fact.

 

[wendy1974]

Why yes I am as matter of fact.

FYI-there are meetings you can attend for that

 

[sodaseller]

So it isn't actually a fact, as you asserted, but rather your opinion.

Just like it's my opinion that the Earth revolves around the sun and is over 12,000 years old, issues the Right considers a matter of personal belief.

With rare exceptions not applicable here, tax cuts do not increase tax revenues. Sort of like saying that an unrestrained object will fall to if dropped due to gravity. The Laffer Curve is the equivalent of saying that will not occur outside a celestial body's gravitation pull. It's a lie, and an immoral one at that

 

[bsnyder]

Umm.. could you please stop using those big words. I have to run a lot of your posts through a dictionary just to figure out what you're saying and to make sure you're not calling people names or something.

Yeah, he could have just used the word poor.

Me thinks this poster has a self-esteem problem.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

How's about a little data from the Federal Reserve in February 2005:

The fact that the dollar is still weak, oil prices are at an all time high, and the U.S. continues to buy cheap high tech imports from China sure isn't helping, I can promise you that...

 

[sodaseller]

Two posts from another board on the general subject from years ago that I saved so I would not have to retype every time. They will be a bit out of context but will make the point. I've given up trying to battle supply-siders with empiricism. Like irredentist Marxists, they ignore the verdict of history based on ideology. It's like expecting an Ostrich to fly because it has feathers. They use numbers, but they can't make them work

This is the statement that I took issue with

The Laffer Curve-the theory that when taxes are too high, reducing them would actually raise tax revenue-is dismissed. "When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less revenue, not more," reports Mankiw in his popular textbook. Never mind that tax revenues actually rose significantly every year of the Reagan administration; the perception is that supply-side economics has been discredited. Arthur Laffer isn't even listed in the 1999 edition of Who 's no in Economics, although the Laffer Curve is frequently discussed in college textbooks.

In its literal sense, it’s true, but it’s patently false in implication. Tax revenues rise every year just due to inflation and the time value of money. In Reagan’s case, the Laffer Curve predicted that revenues would rise beyond the normal increase due to the tax cuts, as an effect of those cuts.

That’s patently false, often disproven, which is why the author is trying to rebut Mankiw by semantically making an argument disproven by that facts. In point of fact, all empirical evidence debunks the Laffer Curve, at least against the data points of the 80s and 90s (I had an earlier exchange with MOI on his point, and agree it could theoretically apply at certain rates much higher).

It’s dishonest to advance a significant public policy issue based on utter falsehoods about what occurred in the past. If you’re going to sell tax cuts, make the moral case, or whatever honest case you want to make. But if the public is worried about the effects on the deficit, don’t lie by saying that the cut itself will increase collections, and then double that lie by saying history confirms that, when the opposite occurred.

To Bush’s credit, this is the one lie his Administration hasn’t advanced on the issue. He has repeatedly lied on the “trifecta”, lied during the campaign about the fact that 25% of the surplus was still available for the rainy day, had OMB lied about the causes of the resurgent deficits, and lied during his SOTU speech by suggesting that the size of the tax cut was justified by rebates that were proposed by his opponents and which are utterly irrelevant to the size of the tax cut. Those aren’t differences in opinion, they’re lies. You can keep making all the Clinton jokes you want while praising Bush’s integrity, but Bush routinely and repeatedly lies on tax/budget issues.

Others have raised the Laffer Curve argument before, parroting Rush and the WSJ, who state it ad naseum. It’s always the same - total tax collections doubled during the Reagan era, which is true, thereby proving that his tax cuts increased collections, which is false.

Here’s why its false.

Historical tax collections are available here: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/98db09co.xls
These aren’t in constant dollars, which I will address below. Columns 4 and 5 are operative. You will note that individual collections actually decreased from 82 to 83. You also have to correlate the changes in tax policy, detailed here (a liberal site, but you can’t challenge the accuracy) http://resurgent.virtualave.net/TaxTimeline.htm

In 82 dollars (use the 96.5 multiplier from here - http://resurgent.virtualave.net/Inflation&CPI.htm), the path from 82 to 89, broken down by Income tax rates, which Reagan originally cut (and subsequently signed bills which partially reversed), and FICA rates, which were consistently raised, shows that income tax collections dropped in the two years following the cut. After the 84 and 86 partial repeals, collections increased again, but still no increase like the Laffer Curve predicts, and this doesn’t even account for an approximate 9% increase in the workforce, which skews it even farther. FICA collections jumped significantly, more than double that of income tax rates. Over 2/3 of the “increase” in collections that WSJ and Rush tout occurred here. But that’s the exact opposite of supply-side theory, as FICA rates were increased. Plus, they should be more sensitive to supply side theory, as dollar one is effected.

In short, the Laffer Curve was debunked in the 80s, by empirical data you can check yourself. The statements made above are deliberately intended to deceive. If you want to sell your plan honestly using other stimulative effects (Keynesian), or just a moral argument, those are honestly debatable. What’s not honestly debatable is to repeat that the Reagan tax cuts produced increases in revenue and proved the Laffer Curve. That’s false.

Like Bob Sommerby said about the Al Gore/internal combustion issues:

In the process, the RNC stood the truth right on its head. Instead of simply acknowledging the truth—Gore was right about a point of technology—the RNC’s spinners have repeatedly said that Gore put forward another wacky idea. And the world is full of normal Americans who don’t know that they’ve been deceived on this matter. They simply don’t know that Rush has deceived them. They don’t know that Jim Nicholson deceived them as well. And when they read Blankley’s appalling column this week, they didn’t know he was deceiving them too. These citizens have heard this gong-show script-point for years. They simply don’t know that the tale is untrue.

BTW, here's your "dynamic environment"

Revised economic assumptions and technical adjustments (including the adjustment for revenue uncertainty) reduce receipts by $75.8 billion in 2003 and $99.4 billion in 2004 relative to the February Budget. These factors reduce receipts over the five-year period 2004 through 2008 by $411.9 billion. Shortfalls in collections of individual and corporation income taxes and employment taxes account for most of the downward adjustment in 2003 receipts. The shortfall in collections of income taxes is attributable to significantly weaker-than-estimated individual and corporation income tax liability for tax year 2002, as reflected in lower-than-expected final payments and higher-than-expected refunds of payments of 2002 tax liability.

Using dynamic scoring, the Administration admits that they were off by $412 billion, at least 25% of the whole tax cut ($1.6 through 2010 - they no longer add in the last two years, which are supposed to be the heaviest)!!!!! Despite that record, the Administration is still thinking we will get "dynamic" in the future, to wit:

The Administration's policy initiatives (see Table 13, Receipts Proposals), which have been modified since February to reflect enactment of the 2003 jobs and growth tax cut, are estimated to increase receipts in 2003 and 2004, but reduce receipts in each subsequent year, resulting in a net tax reduction of $165.7 billion over the five years, 2004 through 2008. This is $275.5 billion less than the $441.2 billion net tax reduction proposed in the February Budget over the same five-year period.

IOW, we are assuming that $275 billion of the tax cut will be offset by growth attributable to that cut, despite the fact that every time we made that assumption in the past, it never happened.

Truly dishonest.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

And the go back to post #350 when TM made the "grand exit".

Sorry, but I didn't YAGE... just apologized for dragging the thread off-topic. However, since it seemed destined to live it's own life, I happily rejoined. It's sad you have a problem with people who disagree with your POV and choose to participate.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

How's about a little data from the Federal Reserve in February 2005:

The fact that the dollar is still weak, oil prices are at an all time high, and the U.S. continues to buy cheap high tech imports from China sure isn't helping, I can promise you that...

Those are only two indicators of the current economic situation. Are we going to ignore job growth, low inflation, mortgage rates that are barely .5% above the 45 year low, stock prices generally higher, profits in many industries up and growing, GNP growing at a steady pace, and many other positive economic factors too numerous to mention?

The dollar is going to be weak or strong and either way there will be people who complain.

Oil prices are rising due to many factors, not the least of which is soaring tension about the ability of oil-producing nations to continue to feed the growing demand.

We could cut off all trade with China, but that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Free trade is a powerful tool the U.S. can use.

 

[Charade]

Two posts from another board on the general subject from years ago that I saved so I would not have to retype every time. They will be a bit out of context but will make the point. I've given up trying to battle supply-siders with empiricism. Like irredentist Marxists, they ignore the verdict of history based on ideology. It's like expecting an Ostrich to fly because it has feathers. They use numbers, but they can't make them work

This is the statement that I took issue with


In its literal sense, it’s true, but it’s patently false in implication. Tax revenues rise every year just due to inflation and the time value of money. In Reagan’s case, the Laffer Curve predicted that revenues would rise beyond the normal increase due to the tax cuts, as an effect of those cuts.

That’s patently false, often disproven, which is why the author is trying to rebut Mankiw by semantically making an argument disproven by that facts. In point of fact, all empirical evidence debunks the Laffer Curve, at least against the data points of the 80s and 90s (I had an earlier exchange with MOI on his point, and agree it could theoretically apply at certain rates much higher).

It’s dishonest to advance a significant public policy issue based on utter falsehoods about what occurred in the past. If you’re going to sell tax cuts, make the moral case, or whatever honest case you want to make. But if the public is worried about the effects on the deficit, don’t lie by saying that the cut itself will increase collections, and then double that lie by saying history confirms that, when the opposite occurred.

To Bush’s credit, this is the one lie his Administration hasn’t advanced on the issue. He has repeatedly lied on the “trifecta”, lied during the campaign about the fact that 25% of the surplus was still available for the rainy day, had OMB lied about the causes of the resurgent deficits, and lied during his SOTU speech by suggesting that the size of the tax cut was justified by rebates that were proposed by his opponents and which are utterly irrelevant to the size of the tax cut. Those aren’t differences in opinion, they’re lies. You can keep making all the Clinton jokes you want while praising Bush’s integrity, but Bush routinely and repeatedly lies on tax/budget issues.

Others have raised the Laffer Curve argument before, parroting Rush and the WSJ, who state it ad naseum. It’s always the same - total tax collections doubled during the Reagan era, which is true, thereby proving that his tax cuts increased collections, which is false.

Here’s why its false.

Historical tax collections are available here: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/98db09co.xls
These aren’t in constant dollars, which I will address below. Columns 4 and 5 are operative. You will note that individual collections actually decreased from 82 to 83. You also have to correlate the changes in tax policy, detailed here (a liberal site, but you can’t challenge the accuracy) http://resurgent.virtualave.net/TaxTimeline.htm

In 82 dollars (use the 96.5 multiplier from here - http://resurgent.virtualave.net/Inflation&CPI.htm), the path from 82 to 89, broken down by Income tax rates, which Reagan originally cut (and subsequently signed bills which partially reversed), and FICA rates, which were consistently raised, shows that income tax collections dropped in the two years following the cut. After the 84 and 86 partial repeals, collections increased again, but still no increase like the Laffer Curve predicts, and this doesn’t even account for an approximate 9% increase in the workforce, which skews it even farther. FICA collections jumped significantly, more than double that of income tax rates. Over 2/3 of the “increase” in collections that WSJ and Rush tout occurred here. But that’s the exact opposite of supply-side theory, as FICA rates were increased. Plus, they should be more sensitive to supply side theory, as dollar one is effected.

In short, the Laffer Curve was debunked in the 80s, by empirical data you can check yourself. The statements made above are deliberately intended to deceive. If you want to sell your plan honestly using other stimulative effects (Keynesian), or just a moral argument, those are honestly debatable. What’s not honestly debatable is to repeat that the Reagan tax cuts produced increases in revenue and proved the Laffer Curve. That’s false.

Like Bob Sommerby said about the Al Gore/internal combustion issues:



BTW, here's your "dynamic environment"



Using dynamic scoring, the Administration admits that they were off by $412 billion, at least 25% of the whole tax cut ($1.6 through 2010 - they no longer add in the last two years, which are supposed to be the heaviest)!!!!! Despite that record, the Administration is still thinking we will get "dynamic" in the future, to wit:

IOW, we are assuming that $275 billion of the tax cut will be offset by growth attributable to that cut, despite the fact that every time we made that assumption in the past, it never happened.

Truly dishonest.

So IOW, trickle down economics doesn't work. The alternative to tax cuts is what? The solution to paying down the national debt is what? Me thinks they are one in the same.

But there is a 3rd choice. QUIT SPENDING MONEY LIKE A SAILOR ON SHORE LEAVE!