$455 Billion Fucking Dollars

[Alien]

Forgot this one:

Of the $789 billion swing to a $455 billion deficit, Bolten [White House budget director] attributed 53 percent to the economic downturn, 24 percent to war, homeland security and other new programs, and 23 percent to the three successive tax cuts enacted since 2001.

So even the White House attributs $181 billion of the swing to tax cuts. (same cite as above).

[Tejota]

I read that the $455 billion deficit doesn’t include the fully cost of the Iraq operation since the budget didn’t request ANY money for that. (it’s all been ‘emergency’ spending).

So the real defict is probably going to be closer to $500 billion.
($650 if we don’t pretend that raiding the SS surplus doesn’t represent deficit spending).

[pantom]

Buy gold.

[dropzone]

*Originally posted by TaxGuy *
"Laffer Curve."

(wistful, nostalgic expression)

I remember the Laffer Curve! What’s it been, almost twenty years since anybody mentioned that as serious economics? And we were Laffering at them then!
**

It’s not a pro-Bush v. anti-Bush thing, it’s a pro-knows shit about economics v. doesn’t thing. **

Pro? Sorry, pal, but your just a tax guy. You don’t know more than the rest of us. And that supply-side shit buttfucked us in the 80s and some of us can still remember the pain.

[SanibelMan]

Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. “Voodoo” economics.

–Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Sorry. Continue.

[rjung]

In a similar vein: Bush’s Data Dump: The administration is hiding bad economic news.

My favorite :rolleyes: quote:

“Earlier this year, a study predicting mediocre job growth from Bush’s proposed $674 billion economic stimulus plan disappeared from the Council of Economic Advisers’ Web site. The study forecast an average increase of only 170,000 jobs – 0.1 percent of the workforce – every year through 2007. The study was pulled just after a major Jan. 7 Bush budget speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. ‘In the out years, by their own estimate, their plan is a job and growth killer,’ says Jared Bernstein, economist at the Economic Policy Institute. ‘Instead of doing what serious analysts would do and going to the drawing board to re-evaluate, they just took the offending document off the Web site.’”

[squeegee]

C’mon, guys! You know deficits are only Bad when they can be blamed on a Democrat. When a Repuplican does it, it fine & dandy. Jeez, try to keep up.

[Jonathan_Chance]

I admit I don’t automatically dismiss the Laffer Curver. But as a theory it serms useless if we can’t establish where we are currently on it. It’s one of those ‘more data needed’ things.

I also have nothing in particular against deficit spending as a short-term solution for specific goals. But anyone who tries to argue that’s what’s happening here is willfully blind or a fool.

And it’s going to be abso-fucking-lutely surreal next year during the election when the republican president is defending deficit spending and the democratic candidate is running on budgetary controls.

I think my political sense just short-circuited.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by elf6c *

1. The Link works fine, I checked it. Again.

It wasn’t yesterday when I tried. It is now.

3. Sorry Alan Greenspan and a noted Harvard Economist made a mockery of your cherished propoganda. But, chuckles, they seem to have alot more credibility then you. 1.7 Trillion it is.

You really are a fucking idiot if you beleive that Bush has cut 1.7 Trillion out of the budget in the last 3 years. The annual budget is only about 1.7 trillion per year.

The article writes it like this:

… Congress had not curbed federal spending while **enacting **more than $1.7 trillion in tax cuts in the past three years.

With that carefully chosen word, enacting. It is a deliberate attempt at misleading. It makes it sound as if the tax cuts have already taken effect, when in fact they are all heavily loaded onto the back end of a ten year period.

Enacting, means “making into law” so the statement is technically true. However, it is an obvious attempt to mislead the reader into thinking Bush’s tax cuts have been larger and more impacting during the last three years.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by TaxGuy *
**TO: Folks putting big numbers on the “cost” of the Bush tax cuts.

FROM: World-renowned tax attorney (OK, only two of those words actually apply to me).**

World renowned corporate attorney laughing at your assertion. Hmm, a Harvard economist and Alan Greenspan versus you. Gee, I wonder. But given your unbiased posts in the past-- oh wait.

*Originally posted by TaxGuy *
**
RE: The cost of tax cuts in general and the last ones in particular.

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION: Go to www.google.com and type in “Laffer Curve.” Remove head from ass. Read several hits.

It’s not a pro-Bush v. anti-Bush thing, it’s a pro-knows shit about economics v. doesn’t thing. **

The widely discredited supply side economics? Gee just because it was a massive failure in practice and is now pretty much discredited by mainstream (i.e. non-ultra right wing) economists, why give up on it? Yeah, its damn clear who doesn’t know jack-shit about basic economics. Stick to filing 1040’s.

As a percentage of GDP, Kogan said, the $455 billion deficit is about equal to the deficits that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had during the Great Depression.

“If you go back to 1789, there are only three times in history when we had debt rise faster than GDP – that is, when we were on a trajectory for a debt explosion: When we were in war, when we were in a recession and when Ronald Reagan was president,” Kogan said. He said the Bush administration has provided estimates on deficits only until 2008 because it doesn’t want to show that there will be big deficits into the far distant future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2814-2003Jul16.html

Oh and the real number is much worse:

Even a seemingly hard number such as $455 billion is nothing more than a projection by the White House. The number includes the Social Security surplus, the current excess of Social Security taxes over Social Security outlays. Without the Social Security surplus, the deficit for 2003 would be $614 billion.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, has greeted the resurrection of the deficit with precisely the kind of alarm you’d expect from a group that came into existence in 1992 expressly to fight this scourge of fiscal sanity. “There’s a vicious cycle, very much like credit card hell,” he said. “This deficit this year is going to have to be financed, and that will show up in future years as a cost.”

Those damn liberals at the Concord Coalition. Oh wait. . .

[Debaser]

The 1.7 trillion tax cut over 10 years was what Bush proposed back in 2001 after being elected. The actual tax cut that has passed is only 1.3 trillion over 10 years.

cite

Moreover, the press makes a big stink over the $1.3 trillion tax cut over 10 years, but put into proper perspective, it’s peanuts. That’s $1.3 trillion out of total government tax revenue of nearly $30 trillion.

However, since then he has cut taxes again.

cite

But after a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $96 billion stimulus last fall and the new $350 billion package, it is widely agreed that Mr. Bush now has ownership of the economy for better or for worse.

So, if you add this all up you get about 1.7 trillion. Is that where you are getting the 1.7 trillion number from, elf6c? If so, its an extremely dishonest tactic to use this figure. The vast majority of this amount is loaded onto the back end of a ten year period. Remember, this is out of a 30 trillion dollar budget, so it’s about a 5% cut. Which hasn’t even taken effect yet.

Unless, of course, you can provide a cite proving Bush somehow cut taxes by 1.7 trillion (or 1 third) in the last three years. Good luck.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**It wasn’t yesterday when I tried. It is now.

You really are a fucking idiot if you beleive that Bush has cut 1.7 Trillion out of the budget in the last 3 years. The annual budget is only about 1.7 trillion per year.

**

1. It worked the whole time. Operator error.

2. The article is very clear what the true cost of the tax cuts are over time. The only person confused here seems to be you. You asked for Cite for the quote and got one. The overall financial impact of the cuts. Heck many experts have it even higher. The provided quote is clear- tax cuts enacted over the last three years- so I cannot fathom your issue. You had a beef with the source of the number in the quote, and now you know. So either try to make some sort of supported assertion (you know-- with Cites), or stop wasting the grown-ups’ time.

---

Fun with Myths:

From an Economist’s journal, he has the body of an interesting NY Times article. Here is a quote from the NT Times Article:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001541.html

The Laffer Curve became the basis of a whole political movement. Prominent politicians like Jack F. Kemp, then a Republican congressman from Buffalo, bought the theory. Then Ronald Reagan adopted it, and it became the justification for the main plank of his 1980 campaign for president (in the face of the elder George Bush’s ridicule that it was “voodoo economics”). After Mr. Reagan was elected, he rammed through Congress in 1981 a tax cut that was then the biggest ever, and his staff produced forecasts showing that within a few years, the budget would be balanced.

Of course, the budget deficits mushroomed. In economics circles, the idea that tax cuts would pay for themselves was never widely held and was mostly abandoned by the late 1980’s. Supply-side economists, as they call themselves, argued instead the much less provocative point that budget forecasters should take into account the view, accepted by nearly all economists, that the revenue lost from $1 in tax cuts would be somewhat less than $1 because of economic growth generated by lower taxes.

More:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/921617.asp?0si=-

To the vast majority of professional academic economists — not the economists manqués who inhabit intellectual biospheres such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and certain time slots on CNBC — the debate over the Laffer Curve is long since settled.

and later:

More damaging to the supply-siders is the record of the last 13 years. Remember, in 1990, Bush, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, raised the top rate from 28 percent to 31 percent. In 1993, Clinton created two new upper brackets, one at 36 percent, and the other at 39.6 percent. Confronted with such higher rates, did rich people suddenly start working less, or reporting less income? Did poorer people stop trying to get rich? Did the lucky ducks who paid lower marginal rates catch up to the better off? No, no, and no. Income inequality increased in the ’90s, and the wealthy’s share of national income (and share of income tax paid) grew sharply.

And a comment from **december’s ** favorite Op-ed piece which cuts the Reagan admimistration some slack, but makes George W and the current crop of tax cutter look alot worse:

In defending Reagan, Bartlett notes the obvious (as did Niskanen). As a general rule, it’s absurd to claim that lower tax rates produce higher revenues. Did any Reaganite ever say different? On that matter, we cannot judge. But in last week’s column, Bartlett makes the obvious point. In almost all instances, lowered tax rates produce lower revenue. Duh! In general, you can’t get higher federal revenue by lowering the rates of taxation.
Why is Bartlett due high praise? Because this bit of “nonsense” is a treasured piece of dim-witted talk-show conservatism. Indeed, Rush has told dittoheads, for years and years, that Reagan’s lowered ’81 tax rates produced higher federal revenue. Others sing the silly song too. Here was Sean Hannity on last Friday’s H&C, chatting with Dem consultant Vic Kamber:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010603.shtml

Note- in both of these links there is some helpful information for you supply-siders if you ever felt like your needed some support for your opinions.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
[Unless, of course, you can provide a cite proving Bush somehow cut taxes by 1.7 trillion (or 1 third) in the last three years. Good luck. **

Damn, its like I am a one man stupidity defense force. Assuming you have basic reading skills I will provide the same damn Cite that was already provided above (damn that tricky scroll fuction, its almost as vexing as correctly clicking a HTML link).

Ready?:

The deficit outlook also dominated the semi-annual report to Congress by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who expressed his concern that the administration and Congress had not curbed federal spending while enacting more than $1.7 trillion in tax cuts in the past three years. He warned that if budget deficits persist, they would inevitably drive up interest rates and choke off economic recovery.

Stop misrepresenting (through malice or stupidity) what the Cite was. There it is. The overall impact of the cuts enacted over the last three years. Really its not a tough paragraph to read- and they are ALAN FUCKING GREENSPAN’S numbers, not mine. Yeesh.

Link (yet again):

Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source

:rolleyes:

[Philster]

Not defending anyone, but…

Are we assuming up front that:

-the economy stinks
-it’s the president’s fault
-it would be growing with a different president?

I think there is general consensus that the President and the Economy of the past two years is not cause and effect. However - and this is a Replublican talking - while the economy was going to take a down-turn no matter who was president, you have to admit that Bush may be hampering a recovery…maybe slowing it a bit with a huge deficit. A little…

BUT, one of the biggest uphill battles is really how coporate America gets back to taking risks, including expanding, investing and innovating, if that’s a word.

The BIG LAG right now is from a pensive base of corporations, terrified to do anything…waiting for a big flashing sign that says “IT IS SAFE TO GO BACK IN THE WATER”.

Bush has NOT helped to get coporate America feeling confident. All of corporate America is acting as though they are all GUILTY until proven innocent of the charges faced by other big Enron’s who defrauded us.

Corporate America is pensive…and no one is increasing risk…expanding…hiring…etc.

THAT is the biggest challenge right now, and quite frankly, that is a much bigger problem than deficits.

Bush has DIRECT accountability for the post -Enron era of corporate attitudes. Barring a change in approach from corporations, and shunning of fears they face, the economy will crawl back to life. CRAWL.

[sailor]

The first Gulf war was paid mainly by other countries. The second Gulf war will be paid almost entirely by the USA. That’s what happens: you act unilaterally, you pay unilaterally. And it’s time to pay the piper.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
Stop misrepresenting (through malice or stupidity) what the Cite was. There it is. The overall impact of the cuts enacted over the last three years. Really its not a tough paragraph to read- and they are ALAN FUCKING GREENSPAN’S numbers, not mine. Yeesh.

Link (yet again):

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdefi163373363jul16,0,6560596.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

:rolleyes:

You really do believe this, don’t you.

Enacted means “passed into law”. Yes, indeed, the Bush administration has passed into law 1.7 trillion in tax cuts over the last three years. However, the vast majority of this amount is back end loaded. The 1.7 trillion figure is over a 10 year period. It really is.

cite

With $1.6 trillion in tax cuts favoring the rich already enacted through 2010

cite

the total cost over the fiscal 2003-13 period will exceed $1.8 trillion

Bush got into office and right away passed a tax cut of 1.3 trillion over a 10 year period. Most of this was back end loaded. A couple of years later, on May 23rd of this year he passed another smaller tax cut of $350 Billion. If you add these up you get 1.7 trillion, over 10 years. Most of which hasn’t happened yet. Your cite obviously refers to this. They use the word enacted, which means they passed the law. Enacted doesn’t mean that the tax cuts have taken effect yet. You are wrong.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
You’re 28% right, Debaser.

$177 billion of it is from tax cuts.

The scary part is, this is how much of the deficit is due to tax cuts before the really big cuts have taken effect.

There’s another scary part for right now, though. If it weren’t for the government being able to poach on the Social Security fund surplus, this year’s budget would be $614 billion in the red.

The article that $177 billion figure comes from is dripping with bias, so I am inclined to think that there is exageration in some way. Especially since the way they phrase it is

But this omits a major culprit: the administration’s reckless tax cuts. As OMB itself estimates, these account for 23 percent of the change since its 2001 projection, or $177 billion.

Calling the tax cuts reckless makes the bias in the article clear. Also saying that the numbers account for 23% seems to indicate they could be using fuzzy math to make them larger than they actually are. For instance, it would be much more clear if they just said “Bush has cut taxes by $177 billion over the past three years.” Instead of this “account for” wording.

However, I am unable to find a cite backing up these numbers or dis-proving them. It’s difficult to find figures on how much taxes have actually been cut for the past 3 years alone, not the entire 10 year span.

I will retract my $50 billion comment from my first post. That was a figure from memory and didn’t inlude the may 23rd cuts. With those cuts, it is actually possible that there have been $177 billion in cuts over the past three years. (Not 1.7 trillion, though.)

[Gary_Kumquat]

Debaser, how the fuck is he wrong? Seriously, what has he said that is wrong? You’ve just provided a whole basis of cites that agree with his original cite, for fucks sake.

[Debaser]

Gary

He thinks that Bush’s tax cuts have had an impact of 1.7 trillion dollars over the past three years. This simply isn’t true. The cite elf has found only says this if you are wooshed by it.

from the article
The deficit outlook also dominated the semi-annual report to Congress by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who expressed his concern that the administration and Congress had not curbed federal spending while enacting more than $1.7 trillion in tax cuts in the past three years. He warned that if budget deficits persist, they would inevitably drive up interest rates and choke off economic recovery.

I have already made my case of why this statement is deceptive. It is technically true, since enacted means “passed into law” not “actually has happened.” However, it’s clear that elf6c and others still don’t get it.

Bush has passed tax cuts in the last three years that cut 1.7 trillion in taxes over the next 10 years. Not in the last three.

*Originally posted by elf6c *
The article is very clear what the true cost of the tax cuts are over time.

No. It’s not. It’s deliberately misleading. By using the word enacted, they confuse the reader into thinking that Bush has cut taxes by 1.7 trillion over the last three years without actually lying. It certainly worked on you.

You asked for a quote and you got one. The overall financial impact of the cuts. Heck many experts have it even higher.

Bullshit. The 1.7 trillion figure is not the “overall financial impact of the cuts”. If you think that 177 billion = 1.7 trillion it’s up to you to prove the fuzzy math. The article clearly doesn’t say this.

The provided quote is clear- tax cuts enacted over the last three years- so I cannot fathom your issue. You had a beef with the source of the number in the quote, and now you know. So either try to make some sort of supported assertion (you know-- with Cites), or stop wasting the grown-ups’ time.

I have come up with several sites showing the 1.7 trillion amount is over a 10 year period. You only have the one cite that you are mis-understanding to show that the 1.7 trillion is over a three year period. Why don’t you try and find another, if you haven’t already? You won’t be able to.

*Originally posted by elf6c *
Stop misrepresenting (through malice or stupidity) what the Cite was.

Eventually you might get the humor in this, since it is you who mis-understands your own cite.

There it is. The overall impact of the cuts enacted over the last three years. Really its not a tough paragraph to read- and they are ALAN FUCKING GREENSPAN’S numbers, not mine. Yeesh.

Look up the word “enacted” in the dictionary. It would be a good start for you to have a fucking clue.

[Debaser]

Just think about it for a second. The budget of the entire USofA is only 1.7 Trillion or so per year. If Bush’s cuts removed 1.7 trillion out of the budget of the past three years that would be a cut of 1/3 of the entire federal budget!

Does any reasonable person actually believe this to be true?