Mark Levin has a point here:
[audio:https://floppingaces.net/Audio/levin120910.mp3]You know I’m a little concerned, I see all these Republican operatives on tv and radio, they’re very giddy. Republican columnists, Republican websites, they’re all excited. Think they have Obama on the run. Think the Democrats are imploding. All giddy.
Well count me out. I’m worried. They have nothing to be giddy about. I’m worried, very worried, and let me tell you why.
You’ve got Obama being attacked for not being radical enough…and he’s a radical! And so the big media and Obama’s staff are positioning him as a centrist or a moderate of some kind. And he’s positioning himself as a populist. So the more they squawk on the nutjob left, of which Obama is a member, the more reasonable he’s going to appear. And this worries me.
One of the more important points he makes is that our leadership doesn’t appear to have the capability to get the message out. If this bad deal collapses is the Republican leadership positioned to point the finger at the people responsible, namely the Democrats?
Listen to the Socialist Keith Ellison:
I think we need to create a real crisis here so that the Republicans will have to answer for denying Americans unemployment benefits on the eve of the Christmas holiday. I don’t think they would do that. But we didn’t create that crisis. We let them off the hook in my opinion.
They will work hard to create this crisis and our Republican leadership better be able to get the truth out and not let slimy Democrats like Ellison shape the message.
Jim Demint is doing his part to get the message out. He sent out a press release that said he would not support this deal. Some of the reasons given:
- 200 billion in new deficit spending
- Extends the cuts for only two years
- Increases the death tax from 0 to 35%
- Dozens of earmarks for special interests
Earmarks like:
ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.
Good for him…but like Levin, I’m worried they aren’t up for the job. Hell, look how the Republican leadership is giving leadership positions to those members who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near these chairs. Our leadership didn’t get the message apparently.
The American people didn’t rise up to give Boehner what he wants. They rose up to take their country back.
Exit note – Van Jones “We are coming for the media and that’s not all”
See author page
“…our leadership doesn’t appear to have the capability to get the message out.”
Very true, which is why Sarah Palin is so important to the party right now. She’s doing yeoman’s work at getting the conservative message out (like she did with Ryan’s Roadmap).
Another great read for a cold Sunday morning…..Yes, you are correct, “…Obama’s staff are positioning him as a centrist or a moderate of some kind…”
For me, I don’t trust either political party. Even after the November election it’s still just 2 parties fighting over who contols our lives.
Might read a new book out where Americans actually take a stand against tyranny (corporate America & corrupt politicians). It’s a must read for may be coming 2011.
http://www.booksbyoliver.com
Thanks again for the article & videos. I enjoy them.
Thus why I do so love Levin. I see we’re on the same page INRE GOP being up to the task, Curt. While it’s impossible to fathom allowing the current Congress to retain control of the nation’s purse strings, I can’t say I’m in the least bit “giddy”, and even less so under two months from midterms.
I’ve said it several times… count me unimpressed with the 2001 tax policy debate. The GOP can’t run on stopping the spending, then pile on with the spending to get the extensions thru. It’s counterproductive for why the extension is needed to begin with, not to mention indicative that they speak with forked tongue… like politicians in general of all stripes.
I don’t think there’s any rocket science to any of this Bush taxes debate. Nor any great strategic plan. Obama/Dems were in the best bargaining position they’ll have until 2012. They couldn’t afford an up/down vote on all or nothing, or they become the Scrooge. Even advocating just for under $250K earners was the bulk of the extensions, so there was no glory in increasing the revenue by the cited pittance of $81.5 bil, and “increasing the deficit” (as they like to frame it…) by the $463 bil. That was a losing proposition as well. You have to consider the costs of the UI extension was $56K estimates alone, which left an annual increase of $25.5 bil… nothing to crow about.
Thus, if they wanted to act while they had some illusion of power left in the chambers, it had to be done before the sunsetting in order to escape the finger being pointed at them. Making a stink about “the wealthiest of Americans” is just political theatre.
Ironically, Obama and the Dems demands for the extension support were… ta da… more tax cuts. A policy flip that Austan Goolsbee spent some time trying to spin away on MTP today. Obama and the Dems are admitting failure of their economic policies and ideology, but carefully trying to hide that from the public and the media. Rare congratulations go to David Gregory for driving the flip flop home multiple times today.
Problem is, the tax cuts they want to add are an ineffective, and ill placed, patchwork bandage to the entire problem in the tax code itself. We’ve gone thru decades of Congressional “bipartisan compromise” that has ended up in just tons of bad hybrid policy and laws that reflect the worst of both.
The GOP should have demanded a simple up and down on extension for all, with no adds. Period. If the Dems had killed that deal because of whining over not getting $81.5 bil in tax increases, and allowing Joe America was being nailed with $463 bil in tax increases, the political onus would have been on them. The GOP had the advantage, because the new Congress could then deal with it, in the wake of the outcry.
GOP were idiots. And if this is what’s coming our way, the fiscal conservative movement has a to bring a lot more pressure to bear…. for the improvement over the Pelosi/Reid regime is only slight, if at all.
Mata, I agree with you. The GOP doesn’t seem to understand that they have the power, even now, much less after January. They MUST take a stand and make Obama back down.
You know what fascinates me, cons? As Richard Pryor used to say about suddenly manly teenage boys, “You are starting to smell yourself.” There seems to be some concept on the con side that cons are now “in control” in Washington. Far from it. Let’s do a reality check:
1) The GOP House, if they wish, can pass any bill they want — defunding Obama care, defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whatever other nickels and dimes they intend to withhold from the standing $3.2 trillion spending budget. But as soon as that is cut, it will go over to the Senate, which will add those dollars right back in.
2) Even assuming you cons could do a Jedi mind trick on Harry Reid and defund Obama priority programs, what makes you think Obama would EVER sign off on them? Especially Obamacare? What could you cons possibly offer Obama that would make him knuckle under to the minority GOPer impulse to make symbolic but meaningless spending cuts? Nothing. So it will be one of those b.s. symbolic votes that cons like to take while doing absolutely NOTHING to bring down the deficit.
3) By passing the tax cut deal, the GOPer cons in the House just set themselves up for the need to find about $400 billion in spending cuts this year JUST TO KEEP EVEN with the last Pelosi House. Prediction — they can’t do it, especially given the fact that Paul Ryan and Friends were only prepared to find $150 billion in “waste, fraud and abuse” as it was. So the first GOPer con spending plan sent to the Senate will end up being, oh $330 billion or so north of the last Pelosi. There will be a lot of “I told you so”s after that. It’s easy to sit in the back of the room and talk sith about “reducing spending’; it is another thing to actually achieve it.
4) The GOPer con “moratorium” on earmarks lasted all of five days. Another dumb promise broken. My prediction: there will be fewer earmarks but for more dollars under the Boehner GOPer cons than under Pelosi’s watch.
The gist of Levin’s commentary, I believe, is quite appropriately that conservatives should refrain from sliding into a state of complaisance. On the other hand, there is way too much being made in the MSM of Obama’s “move.” He long ago demonstrated a lack of capacity for strategic thinking. Do we need to review his long trail of international blunders? . . . No need. The community-organizer-who-got-lucky-hiding-behind-a-teleprompter can’t make a strategic decision.
How much more convincing does anyone need that Obama is uninterested in the economic plight of millions of Americans, than the pathetic scene we witnessed at the W.H. podium between he and Clinton? Obama’s narcissism will work against him as he does what is for his own best interest, . . . the Nation comes a distant second, or third, or not at all.
I agree, it is a mistake for Boehner & Co. to move the line in the sand, . . . . don’t cave in and don’t give up any pork.
I agree, it is a mistake for Boehner & Co. to move the line in the sand, . . . . don’t cave in and don’t give up any pork.
I love all the Monday Mornging Quarterbacks.
In case you didn’t get the memo, in this current congress we, The Republicans, are a distinct minority.
How you can stop the pork with such paltry numbers is a joke.
@Ivan:
Two questions:
1) How many votes are needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate?
2) How many votes do the Dims have?
In case you didn’t get the memo, the only way this “deal” gets through is by the Reps caving.
Aye The “deal’ passes with bipartisan support.Boehner doesn’t see it as caving.The large majority of voters won’t see it as caving.Only far right and far left (still a minority) see it that way.Best to you.
@ rich wheeler,
Unfortunately, if you cave here, the optics get blurred, and the vast centre majority thinks Washington didn’t listen to the results of the mid terms.
There are even bigger fish to fry over the next 2 years of legislation, . . . giving in here bodes badly for the more difficult decisions coming.
@ Ivan,
How you stop the pork, if you really want to, is to go to the public, and very simply and succinctly delineate What you’re doing and Why. No fluff, no B.S. just the facts and elements underlying the strategy. Then as Aye suggests, you sit on your hands until you sit with a majority.
So far, we haven’t seen much of that from Beohner & co.
@ rich,
I may be wrong, but I just don’t believe that the mid terms were a demand from the majority of the voters, for Bipartisanship.
There was more of an emphatic demand for a line in the sand on taxation and spending.
@rich wheeler:
The far left wants more, the ‘so-called’ far right fears the bankrupting of the country and what will happen for to children, grandchildren and beyond, the mushy middle or, large majority as you wish to call it, will someday awaken, finally realize the mess we are in and wonder what in the world happened….to late.
I never realized that wanting the Federal government to stick to the limits in the Constitution was “far right.”
I never realized that wanting our duly elected officials to represent what is best for the country and not how much pork they can bring home is “far right.”
Is any of this any surprised to anyone watching the news for the last ten years?
Only the Republican Leadership has the memory of a fly, they remember months not years. The other failing they have is that they think the rest of the country remembers that way as well. Ten years ago I would have agreed with that but not today in our internet connected society. The standards have been raised and the Repubs seem to think it is a limbo bar and they simply have to get close to win the contest.
From Friday’s PBS News Hour. Commentary by David Brooks:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/shieldsbrooks_12-10.html
DAVID BROOKS:
Krauthammer’s op-ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html
And:
“Republicans are the most supportive of the deal: 57% say it should be passed, compared with 48% of Democrats and 44% of independents.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-13-poll-tax-cut-deal_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Ah yes, quoting David Brooks because he agrees with you. Sadly, he like you Larry, is wrong more often than right. To announce that this alone will somehow vault him to re-election all this way from 2012 is delusional thinking. Then again I’m talking to somone who thinks obama winning the election but bungling everything else is a sign of his political genius.
I also suggest you actually read what Krauthammer wrote. He said it “boosts” obama’s chances of being re-elected, not “makes Obama’s re-election quite likely.” Enough with the obama kool-aid Larry. You really are willfully blind.
@Hard Right.
?
What did I say that he was agreeing with?
Huh, I made no comment at all. I simply posted the comments of two other pundits, who agreed with Levin that the deal (which just overcame a Senate filibuster) wasn’t necessarily a political plus for the GOP. And that’s what was the most prevalent opinion on this particular F/A thread, as well.
Enough with the “Kool-Aid” cliche, by the way. Maybe come up with a more original turn of phrase — it would be more entertaining.
– Larry W/HB
P.S. @Aye (#8). I think the the Senate just voted cloture on the filibuster (83 votes) and it will then sail through the Senate. Ironically, the Hard Left of the House may join up with the Hard Right of the House to scuttle the deal — or that’s the concern of those trying to get it passed.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tax-deal-passes-vote-senate/story?id=12385946
– LW/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
It’s the far left making all the noise, Larry. Nothing in the article you posted mentions anything about the far right and far left linking up to scuttle the deal. From what I’ve heard, the House may hold a couple of meaningless votes designed to allow a bit more of their blustering and then a final vote for the bill as is. More foot stomping because the dead filthy rich should be robbed so they can spend more.
Shamefully, the burden of continued spending will be added to the huge debt and left for the little babies yet to be born.
Way to avoid multiple points Larry.
1) You have a history of quoting David Brooks to support your opinions.
2) You posted an exaggeration by Brooks of what Krauthammer said. Again, you really should read before you post something like that. That is why Brooks isn’t a credible source.
3) We know you’re convinced obama will be re-elected and have said as much.
4) You are an obama kool-aid drinker. It describes you quite well. You have earned the title and will just have to live with wearing it.
5) Lastly, it wasn’t just you posting a story. It’s clear you were celebrating what you thought was an obama victory and an indicator he will be re-elected. Granted it was low key, but the intent behind it was clear.
@Hard. Curt’s blogpost was all about Levin warning that this was a bad deal for Republicans. Everyone else agreed. I just posted links to additional people saying the exact same thing.
When I disagree with conservatives, you call me names. When I agree with conservatives, you call me names. I can’t win for losing.
By the way, as regards Brooks “misquoting” Krauthammer, I watched the PBS Newshour and the way he said it, I didn’t get the idea that he was quoting an op ed. Krauthammer gave lots of interviews (I watched Krauthammer holding forth on O’Reilly on Fox, making the point about how this was better for the Dems than for the GOP. Krauthammer said that Obama got a 900 billion “stimulus” out of the GOP, which was going to rescue the economy and make the Dems look good). So neither you nor I know what Brooks was quoting. Those guys (A list pundits) talk to each other, as well as writing columns and giving interviews.
I don’t know — but David Brooks is a very careful, respected pundit. He said that Krauthammer said that this bill “guarantees Obama’s re-election.” I’m very sure that he (Brooks) didn’t just make that up. It’s certainly not the sort of thing that Krauthammer would put in a column, but it is certainly something which he could have said privately, to other politicos and pundits.
I couldn’t find anywhere where Krauthammer denied saying it. Personally, I think that Brooks quoted Krauthammer accurately.
Not that Krauthammer has the ability to know the future; but it’s simply an expression of just how bad a deal Krauthammer thought it was. And yet it’s going to pass with probably more GOP support in the House than Dem support.
Very strange.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, you won’t find me disagreeing.
Don’t give a crap about Brooks… never will. Krauthammer I respect. Doesn’t mean we are in lockstep on opinion. Nor do I care about the GOP. Seriously, there isn’t a pundit or party on earth I agree with 24/7/365. In fact, the only person I *do* agree with all the time is… well… me. :0)
The Republican leadership is out to lunch on this. Listened to Hannity cave today on his radio program when he was talking about holding firm with a simple up/down vote on the tax policy only, and then dealing with it next year. (trapped in the car with nothing else as an alternative…. ) Without alternative talking points when interviewing one of his own, he was floundering when someone actually responded and he didn’t have his “teleprompter” list at hand. No great thinker, that one. ah, but then, it’s job security for his producers, eh?
On the flip side, however, the Dems are far beyond out to lunch… they are doing 4 star dining on the taxpayers’ dime.. breakfast, lunch and dinner. Then they put in chits for MikeyD’s, and expect us to accept that McDonalds was really that expensive They are quite used to a stupid electorate, not paying attention to details.
This deal sucks… this is a loser for the Dems, who flip flopped on “tax cuts”, then spent even more with another stimulus. They will pay for that.
It’s a loser for the GOP, who traded keeping taxes status quote for additional spending in the wake of a very serious midterm message. They also will pay for that.
But the American public are the biggest losers.
So what’s a voter to do? Clowns to the left of us… jokers to the right. You find the clown puppet who’s strings the voters can control the easiest, right?
As far as you… don’t take it personally. Some will disagree with you if you say the sky is blue because you are a liberal. Others genuinely think this is a good deal.
Mata – I try to argue with myself every once in a while, that way I am not always agreeing with someone…. 😛
I missed Hannity’s flip flop, the local radio station broke in. Seems the Mayor of Springfield, IL (state capitol and very near where I live) killed himself this morning. Newspapers are saying it is suicide, but the State Police are being quite vague on it.
Okay… I can’t resist….
… who wins? :0)
INRE Hannity, I doubt it would be replayed. Don’t know if Hannity provides transcripts of his radio shows like Rush does. But he melted when he presented the idea that they should just stick to the up/down vote on the Bush tax policy extensions and, if it didn’t fly, deal with it next year. The taxpayer-paid-congressional type on the other end (didn’t catch his name… didn’t care) just made the excuse that the Senate wouldn’t pass it and if they did, Obama could veto it.
Hannity had nothing to say. Dumbo with a microphone, that one is.
Who cares if the Senate didn’t pass it on, or that Obama could or couldn’t veto it? Do you think either of them would want the political onus of raising taxes on the “middle class” (since we’re all “classes” to them now…) on their record? There is no way they could get away from the reality that $463 bil on Joe Blow America was a piss poor trade off for the $81.5 tax increase on the wealthiest.
So let us know what the scoop is on your mayor. Hit that “submit reader post” link at the top. Always enjoy your stuff.
Larry, in Krauthammer’s article it says:
“…While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances…”
“…the package will add as much as one percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012…”
“Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008…”
You want me to believe Brooks was quoting Krauthammer from some interview? Krauthammer was careful in his article not to say it made his “re-election chances quite likely.” Yet when caught quoting someone who was less than honest in their citation, you try to spin, spin, spin. I seriously doubt he would say what Brooks claims since Krauthammer doesn’t seem to believe it himself.
Krauthammer didn’t deny it anywhere? That’s the kind of garbage Olberman pulls.
Now tell me where Brooks cited him accurately? Brooks is anything but a “very careful, respected pundit.” He’s a hack those on the left like to quote because he once pretended to be a Conservative and now attacks Conservatives. He decided to sell out in order to make the cocktail circuit. He is also an obama kool-aid drinker like you are which is probably another reason you like to cite him. Brooks called obama a moderate and you jumped on that as if it were accurate. You sure set the bar low when it comes to admiring individuals.
Produce a quote where Krauthammer said this tax cut extension bill makes obama’s “re-election chances quite likely” and I will apologize. I’m not holding my breath for it tho.
Mata, thanks for the kind words on my posts.
As to my arguing with myself……….well I used to argue with my wife until we both discovered I was always wrong. 🙄 😛
Well, anticsrocks… this is for you to pass on to your wife when you think you’re losing an argument. While she’s laughing and off guard, you can go in for “the kill”… :0)
11 PEOPLE ON A ROPE
Eleven people were hanging on a rope
Under a helicopter.
10 men and 1 woman.
The rope was not strong enough to carry them all
So they decided that one had to leave,
Because otherwise they were all going to fall.
They weren’t able to choose that person,
Until the woman gave a very touching speech.
She said that she would voluntarily let go of the rope,
Because, as a woman,
She was used to giving up everything
For her husband and kids or for men in general,
And was used to always making sacrifices
With little in return.
As soon as she finished her speech,
All the men started clapping . . . . ..
Mata’s got it right IMHO – this is the crux of it:
“Who cares if the Senate didn’t pass it on, or that Obama could or couldn’t veto it? Do you think either of them would want the political onus of raising taxes on the “middle class” (since we’re all “classes” to them now…) on their record?”
Push Obama and the left into rejecting the slap in the face they received in the midterms from the electorate. Voters and taxpayers are looking for STRENGTH. They’ve had enough of a limp, indecisive President. This is no time to hide under a desk and vote “present.”
I also think Krauthammer is baiting somewhat. He’s shown too much analytical acumen in the past not to have something up his sleeve. Of course, he could also be baiting the Republican leadership. Things are never as they seem.
@James Raider – You said:
Interesting point, JR.
Something else that Krauthammer said (on the O’Reilly show) is this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/charles-krauthammer-the-professional-left-is-clueless-obama-is-the-big-tax-deal-winner-2010-12
Do you guys understand what Krauthammer is saying? He’s saying the same thing that I’ve been saying, that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves and are paid for by borrowing money from the Chinese, which must be paid back by the nation’s children. Tax cuts are even more “generational theft” than is borrowing money to finance education programs or infrastructure programs, because at least the latter benefit the people who will pay down the debt incurred, while the tax cuts do nothing beyond sparing today’s voters the unpleasant necessity of paying for their own government.
You guys think it’s hyper-patriotic to cut your taxes and borrow money to pay your bills, while it’s Marxist/Socialist to raise taxes to pay your own bills.
I would have a deep respect for any conservative who said, look, we’ve got to take responsibility for what is happening today, in real time. Yes, it would be great to reduce spending, but, until we’ve done that, we’ve got to sacrifice a little to pay for the things we refuse to cut, so that our kids aren’t stuck with the bill. Do that, and then work like heck to get the cuts you want and then — and only then — reward your hard work with a tax cut.
But I don’t see anything like that coming out of the GOP or the Tea Party. All I see are angry demands for real tax cuts and vague platitudes about spending cuts, without ever saying where the cuts are going to come from to make up for the revenue lost (see Krauthammer, above) by the tax cuts.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@James Raider, just what and whom do you thing Krauthammer is “baiting”? Now I love the guy… most of the time. But I also remember his establishment GOP reaction to midterms and Palin picks. A way of taking success, while dissing those who led to his success.
I put him in the “huh? caution!” column.
That aside, just what could he possibly be baiting? This is really quite simple. There is yet to be found a sitting Congressman from the GOP that can make a cogent argument for caving in this lame duck session on a simple up/down vote. They all use the “for the people” argument… both parties…. and take the compromise so it won’t result in an increase.
‘scuse me, but who the heck cares in the short term? We’re already eating it as taxpayers for the long run. What’s a learning experience in the scheme of 6 months to a year to prove… yo… this ain’t the way to go.
I’m a “tough love” kind of lesson person. You do you best to influence, and reason. If they don’t do it the right way, let the powerhouses do it the wrong way. What bites them in the butt is healthy for the electorate… as this midterms has shown. Remember, for euro-socialism to leer it’s ugly head to Joe Blow citizen, it took soaring rhetoric Obama, PLUS a usual and common Dem ownership of both chambers,. But this time it was Dems with a Senate supermajority… as well as approx 4 shy from a supermajority in the House.
Some lessons are painful… but memorable. The GOP needs to be reminded of that since they forsook their promises less than 60 days after midterms.
@Larry, don’t push your luck. The GOP were idiots, but Obama was no braintrust either… nor any winner. In fact, if you asked for perfect trifecta of losers, this is it…
Let me repeat personally… I don’t give a flying fart what Krauthammer has to say about anything. I will take the status on what the US treasury report says..… a report that I’ve linked here in several threads., It analyzes tax policies and it’s effect on revenue income (not debt or deficity, which is a combo of income to Congressional spending… something you like to ignore…).
What it shows is the tax revenues increasing after tax policies that involve cuts, and relates it to specific bills over the decades. When we have more cash in our pocket, we’re apt to grow our ability to make a profit… which the government then taxes. It’ ain’t rocket science.
Where you go astray with fellow libs is your insistence that it’s tied to the deficit and debt.. none of which have to to with revenue income. When you spend more than you take it, you have debt.
Where you and the rest of us disagree is you figure you want to support the current spending (and increases) by raising taxes, and we want to find ways to reduce not only the taxes, but the spending. You see, there is no end to the “increases” the government wants to demand with our current path.
@Mata, who said:
Haven’t yet taken the opportunity to respond to this yet. Your analysis is not correct.
Wonder why the GOP leadership isn’t touting the tax cuts as a means to cut the deficit, while every single economist of any credibility at all, from the CBO to Alan Greenspan acknowledges that they’ll make the debt problem much worse. What the GOP leadership says is that it would be a bad idea to raise taxes during a recession — in other words, to lessen the Keynesian stimulus from borrowing money to keep money circulating.
The Bush/Reagan tax cuts were a disaster for the economy and are largely responsible for our debt crisis today. — your bar graphs and trend lines notwithstanding, as I’ll explain, by and by.
P.S. your devotion to the utterly discredited school of voodoo (“supply side”) economics is putting you out on an increasingly lonely limb.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
t’ain’t my analysis, Larry. Suggest you take your disagreements of increasing revenues, using hard figures, with Jerry Tempalski of the US Treasury. Frankly, I’m putting my money on him, being as he’s the income/money guy, and you cure cancer for a living. And judging by your “I haven’t been able to respond yet” response, you be having a hard time dissing hard numbers, eh?
Added: I’ll let your pathetic “PS” speak for itself. Talk about “utterly discredited”… Unworthy of you, my friend. Personal stab, yet you have nothing on your side that can combat absolute federal income statistics used for the Treasury report. For shame….
Oh yes… allow me to add to this comment of yours:
Really? Wonder why the GOP leadership IS, in fact, “touting the tax cuts”, and why Obama the the Dims are demanding that TAX CUTS be added to the Bush tax policy extension?
Doh… revelation?
Greenspan? He and his wife can retire into the obscure shadows. I have no love for Greenspan, nor Bernanke. Don’t care who appointed them. It’s like passing of this “oh my god, the POWER over stuff I don’t know!” position to anyone with the balls to apply.
Yet both these men have made serious faux pas that can take down a nation. Are they human? Of course. But I don’t need an economic gambler in charge of my country. And don’t even get me started on the power of the “appointed” Fed Reserve chairs.
Both the GOP leadership and the “Dims” are “touting” tax cuts as a Keynesian stimulus and not as a tool for deficit reduction. As Krauthammer acknowledged, extending these tax cuts will add MASSIVELY to the debt burden (adding MUCH more to the debt burden than did the much reviled Obama “Stimulus One.”)
Find me a single quote by a single credible source which claims that extending the Bush tax cuts will not add to the deficit, much less will reduce the deficit. I can find dozens which claim otherwise.
As I said, I’ll be back with my critique of your assertion that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts paid for themselves, as opposed to massively adding to the rise in the debt ratio.
– LW/HB
P.S. Sorry for the previous P.S. I tend to get cranky, late at night, like this. Just frustration setting in, as in, “why on earth doesn’t she get it?”
LOL on your “PS”, Larry. But then, I can say the same for you.
I will ask you here on forum what I asked of you off… just what pundit has relevant ammo against a study that relates tax policy, by the specific enacted legislation, to sheer income numbers, that is relevant? You can spin it all you want, but the fact is, the Reagan years and the Bush years both resulted in increasing income. The Clinton tax policy resulted in decreasing federal revenue. That’s the reality… like it or not.
Spending? Talk to your Dems, who have controlled Congress for the “supermajority” of six decades. Nothing to do with income, mind you. The income increased. They just spend it anyway.
And this is justifiable… how?
@Larry:
Explain to me how tax cuts need to be “paid for?”
And BTW, no one is talking about giving anyone a tax cut. The debate is about extending the current tax RATES, and since they won’t be going up, that only means one thing:
That means that the libs in Congress and the WH were greedily counting on higher taxes giving them more of our hard earned money to spend.
Our Federal government does NOT have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
Cut taxes? Yes.
Cut spending as well to “pay for it” if you will.
anticsrocks… one more for your “get the wife goin'” arsenal. :0)
~~~
A store that sells new husbands has opened in New York City where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:
You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!
So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband.
On the first floor the sign on the door reads: Floor 1 – These men Have Jobs
She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads: Floor 2 – These men Have Jobs and Love Kids.
‘That’s nice,’ she thinks, ‘but I want more.’ So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads: Floor 3 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking.
‘Wow,’ she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads: Floor 4 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework. ‘Oh, mercy me!’ she exclaims, ‘I can hardly stand it!’
Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads: Floor 5 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak.
She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads: Floor 6 – You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.
@mata:
O.K. Here’s the fatal flaw in your argument. You believe that tax revenue is solely determined by tax rates and by their effect on an otherwise unchanging economy. In fact, tax receipts are most strongly correlated with growth in GDP and growth in GDP is correlated with things far more important than tax rates.
The “stagflation” of the Carter years, which resulted in the recession bequeathed to Reagan, was owing to factors and policies largely beyond Carter’s control (I think that we can both agree that the nation’s people — not its President — determine which way the economy goes). The price explosion (inflation) of the Carter years was largely a rebound from the wage and price controls of the early and mid-1970s. Remember Ford’s “WIN” (whip inflation now) campaign, on top of Nixon’s wage and price freezes?
No one would do that sort of thing today (wage and price freezes), because we learned the lesson of the 1970s. When the freezes were unfrozen, we unleashed a pent up monster, and prices shot up through the stratosphere. The Fed squeezed the money supply to control inflation by raising interest rates. The Fed always does this. This produced economic stagnation, on top of inflation, and, eventually, a recession.
But this wasn’t all. The US work force was beginning to age and was being replaced by a massive influx of baby boomers. On top of this, we had women’s lib and unprecedented numbers of women were entering the workforce, taking the place of well-trained and experienced WWII generation workers. All these new workers tended to be paid much lower wages than the workers they replaced (particularly women, who still face wage discrimination). These new workers were also not as adroit and efficient as the experienced workers they were replacing. So industrial productivity indices went downward. New workers, with lower wages, had less money to spend. It was tough to borrow money, as interest rates were so high. The house in which I now live was originally financed with an 11 and a quarter percent loan (!). Our car loan was above 20%.
So Reagan comes in, in the midst of an economic mess. Gradually, the country comes out of it. The country always emerges from a recession. Volcker’s high interest rate policy worked. Money dried up, prices came down, and the Fed eased interest rates. We refinanced our mortgage downward, giving us more money to spend. We traded in our car on one with lower payments. We baby boomers got the hang of our work and became more productive and started earning more money.
On top of it all, Reagan went on a Federal spending spree. Massive military buildup. An economic stimulus which dwarfed Obama’s measly “stimulus 1.”
OF COURSE, tax revenues increased. But not nearly so much as they would have increased, had Reagan not cut the tax rates! That’s what absolutely every economist now agrees. If I’m wrong, find me one to agree with you and let me read his/her arguments. I can find 20 who agree with me, and finding these guys and gals is not “spinning.”
Also, I don’t think you got your numbers right. In fact, I’m sure that you don’t.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Under the period of Reagan’s policies, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP declined significantly. Gross tax revenues (adjusted for inflation) were virtually flat. In contrast, under Clinton, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP rose significantly. Gross tax revenues rose far more robustly than under Reagan. In addition, Clinton cut spending, relative to Reagan, mainly by rolling back defense spending. The results speak for themselves: Reagan doubled the debt ratio; Clinton cut the debt ratio.
Now (same table), Bush comes in. Cuts taxes. Same old same old. Revenues as percent of GDP fall. Rate of revenue rise falls. Debt ratio rises. Rate of spending also goes way up, relative to Clinton. Even before the meltdown, we had a net loss of private sector jobs under Bush. In the last months before Obama took over, we were losing 700,000 private sector jobs per month. Since Obama has taken over, he’s added more net private sector jobs in a year and a half than Bush added in 8 years.
So not only are your arguments incorrect, but your numbers are, also.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, do you actually believe the BS you post? Mata is going to shred your circular reasoning, excuse making, and outright false claims.
Larry:
Well, I hate to brake it to you Larry, but Glenn Beck is the poster child for what you just quoted. Even before it was obvious to most as to how much trouble we were in, Beck was the lone voice out there begging Americans to take responsibiliy, starting with the courage to “feel pain” for the sake of a greater good and our kids.
Mata:
I’m totally there with you on Hannity! Maybe in real life he’s a nice guy, but for the life of me, never, ever, “got him”, or what his audience gets from him. IMO, he’s the highest paid “attack dog” in America, who, from the little I could ever stomach listening, is yet to have an orignal thought, let alone, an intelligent debate. His one saving grace is that he got Mark Levin into the spotlight, which explains why Mark is probally so kind to him. I swear if he ever called into the Levin show incognito, it would be a “Get out of here you idiot” Levin moment. Again, Fox is only number one not because they are sages over there, only that there is nothing better (conservative wise).
Lastly, as for the Feds, I suspect between Wiki and Paul, the way too long Fed coverup will soon be exposed for the fraud that it always was.
Just a heads up Larry, you excuse Carter from the mess he created and making a bad economy worse, yet you give obama credit for creating jobs. Well, is the president to blame for a bad economy or not? The fact you can’t see the tortured…”logic” behind your claims is disturbing. BTW, the jobs info you claim for obama is bogus. Again, I’ll let Mata do the fisking if she has the time.
P.S.- You know what else drives up the debt to GDP? Massive runaway spending. You know, the part of the deficit equation you aren’t able to understand due to your liberal beliefs.
Mata #’s 30 and 40 A defender of Conservatism and a joke teller to boot.Well done.
Mata and Patricia Agreed that “pretty boy Sean” is a simple minded “attack dog”
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, not so much:
Toss out the Jan 2001 figure, it belongs to Clinton.
Move the Jan 2009 figure over to Bush.
Bush’s eight year total: 1,080,000 cumulative addition.
Obama’s not quite two year total: -3,010,000 cumulative loss.
So not only are your arguments incorrect, but your numbers are, also.
@Aye: I clicked on your link. It was “temporarily unavailable.” When it becomes available, I’ll review the data and, if I was wrong in my assertion, I’ll acknowledge my error.
When the web site is back up, perhaps you can help me compare and contrast job growths of different administrations, in the context of government tax revenues and changes in the debt ratios, to get a more complete view of the results of the different economic policies.
To put the data which we are about to review in context:
The chief economic goal of the Carter administration (along with that of the Ford administration) was control of runaway inflation.
The chief economic goal of the Reagan administration was stimulation of growth.
The chief economic goal of the Clinton administration was deficit/debt control.
The chief economic goals of the Bush and (so far) Obama administrations have been stimulation of growth.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You can use this link instead.
You will have to change the date range to 2001 through 2010 (or whatever range you are interested in).
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth
Thanks, Aye. I’ll review it and get back. I’m Pacific time and in the earlier part of my work day. May not be able to give it the attention it deserves until tonight. – L
Mercy me… is there an echo in here? I have, on two occasions that I can cite – both here, and here… – pointed out that projections of revenue those of you like to tout when defending tax INCREASES is impossible because it can’t project consumer (or business) behavior in the wake of that tax policy.
Interesting that you bring it up while referencing past figures and studies, but dodge it like the plague when it comes to future projections.
But that’s not an issue here, Larry… because the US Treasury figures for federal receipts incorporate the consumer and business behavior in their figures.
Now you may want to give us all a history lesson from the Larry economic text book, but you still can’t address the plain simple fact that in the wake of Reagan’s tax policies, the federal receipts increased. And in the wake of Clinton’s tax policies, the federal receipts went down.
Now since you prefer to see those federal receipts as a percentage of the GDP, and since it was obvious that you did not read the US Treasury report (because they are in there, and the data was analyzed four different ways…), here’s the graph of that, where I clearly marked the years of both presidents years in office. (Remember, this is from 2006, so it doesn’t go up to current time)
That’s going to be tough to ‘splain away, eh? You can see both upward and downward trends… well, most people can, anyway. Billy Bob can’t. Clinton’s was a downward trend. Reagan’s was upwards and slightly fluctuating but relatively stable. Bush 43’s started out with Clinton’s low, and after the economic fall out of 911, started again on an upward trend.
Now…. let’s go to your link to the Tax Policy Center’s data. What you are looking at is not just the increase/decrease of federal receipts, but also at the budget outlay. In other words, you’re again steering this back to deficit to make your case.
Larry, that’s not the argument. We are all well aware there is a deficit, adding to unfathomable debt. However the deficit is a matter of Congressional budgets, overspending the anticipated and real federal receipts.
The argument is whether tax policy… specifically tax rates… affect the amount of revenue flow into the Treasury coffers as positive or negative. It is NOT whether Congress spent more than we took in… we already know that they did, and continue to do.
There is no more focused study on how specific tax policy affects the revenue stream than the study I have repeatedly linked here. There is no economic pundit… or even a butt load of economic pundits that may agree with you… that can argue the hard figures that are shown on these charts. One is data, the other is nothing more than historic spin.
As to your GDP as a measure, again I will point out that the effect on the GDP overall, and either way, is generally nominal. And, in fact, I pointed out the quote on page 8 of the study that reiterates that… “The effect of most tax bills on GDP is uncertain, but probably generally small.” That quote has a footnote to Alan J. Auerbach, Dynamic Revenue Estimates,@ The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 1996, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 141-157.
Last, let’s go to your Tax Policy Center link again. You complain about Reagan, you complain about Bush 43, you praise Clinton, and you praise Obama. You are, of course, completely backwards on Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 as the data shows. But look at the deficit numbers since 2007, which was then a -1.2 as a percentage of the GDP.
After a year of Pelosi/Reid spending, the percent went to minus 3.2. The next year it fell further to minus 9.9. The 2010 “estimates” are slated at minus 10.6
Now I’m not sure where the rosy figures are coming from for the other projections because we then come back to the same argument you, yourself made….. they are flawed because they cannot predict consumer or business behavior in the wake of any legislative or regulations changes to tax policy. Hang, most of the figures about how the debt and deficit would be reduced was based on a projected GDP that has already had to be revised downward in the face of reality.
Looking back, we have the value of hindsight. Looking forward, under this admin, projections are done with the word “hope” in capital letters behind the asterisk.
Hindsight, my friend, just doesn’t bear out your talking points.
Now, INRE spending in general, and tax policy. Spending is out of control, and Congress must be reined in. Yes, we have to take some hard hits, and we’re going to have watch very carefully how Congress backs out of the spending mess they created.
Tax policies should never be “permanent” IMHO because different economic times need flexible economic measures. It would be extremely helpful if we had a POTUS who didn’t turn the wrong direction down a one way road to correct the problem. And BTW, Reagan did both tax cuts *and* tax increases. However, when the nation was reeling from Jimmah “let’s do a crude oil windfall profit tax” Carter policies, Reagan didn’t try to bleed Joe Citizen dry in order to support unfettered Congressional greed.
@Larry: I know that in other threads you have said that you don’t read every post, so let me repost my comments from #39
Maybe THIS time you will deign to answer my question:
@Mata – Is it just me or does anyone else love it when you take these libs to the woodshed?
@mata:
you say:
You are incorrect.
I have no idea what is meant by “tax bill revenue estimates.” You link a figure but you don’t link the web site which explains how they constructed that bar graph.
Let’s look at the ACTUAL NUMBERS:
As I explained:
Here’s the actual, complete, unmassaged data, year by year which backs that up:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Example:
Tax receipts (in billions of constant FY 2005 dollars):
1981: 1,251
1982: 1,202
1983: 1,113
1984: 1,174
1985: 1,250
1986: 1,277
1987: 1,375
1988: 1,421
1989: 1,494
1990: 1,508
1991: 1,473
1992: 1,467
1993: 1,511
1994: 1,617
1995: 1,691
1996: 1,775
1997: 1,889
1998: 2,040
1999: 2,136
2000: 2,310
2001: 2,215
2002: 2,028
2003: 1,901
2004: 1,949
2005: 2,153
2006: 2,324
2007: 2,414
2008: 2,288
2009: 1,906
Just as I said, actual tax receipts were relatively flat during the Reagan and Bush years, even as government spending (much of it the massive defense build up) was rapidly going up. This resulted in a doubling of a debt ratio which had been steadily falling for 35 years. Maybe the defense build up was worth it; if so, he should have paid for it, rather than cutting taxes.
During the Clinton years, with the Clinton-Rubin tax increases, actual tax receipts went up steadily and substantially and Clinton also markedly scaled back defense outlays, and the deficit came back down.
Bush goes in, cuts taxes and fights a war (which, again, may have been worthwhile, but it also should have been paid for), and the deficit and debt ratio again balloons.
Tonight, I’m going to quote verbatim 20 different economists, virtually all conservatives, who –square on — address the issue of whether the Reagan or Bush tax cuts added to the deficit or reduced it. Advance notice: they all say they added to it. They all say that extending the Bush tax cuts will add to it.
Although I respect your math abilities and high level of general intelligence, you aren’t an economist and I would think that you’d like to find someone who is a bona fide economic expert who has addressed the issue — square on — of whether the Reagan and Bush tax cuts improved the deficit or worsened it (as say “my” stable of economists).
Krauthammer is no fool and he’s no “lib-dim.” He says that extending the Bush tax cuts will add 900 billion (actually, I think that the tax cut extension will account for about 80% of this total and the other provisions of the tax deal bill will account for the rest) in debt with money borrowed from China which is going to stimulate the economy and improve Obama’s re-election challenges. Not a single GOP politician has said that extending the tax cuts will help the GOP’s born again resolve to cut the deficit; they are just defending it as an economic stimulus, pure and simple, which is all it is, only in very indirect language, while Krauthammer has the intellectual honesty to call a spade a spade.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@antics:
The Bush tax cuts were defended at the time (by Greenspan and many others) on the basis that there was a treasury SURPLUS and that the surplus was projected to continue as far as the eye could see. But it was recognized that it’s foolish to project more than 10 years out and the these tax cuts were put in as a TEMPORARY measure, because it wasn’t thought desirable for the government to be running a surplus, as it would just lead to the growth of government programs.
Well, the surplus ran out immediately, and deficits roared back, just as they had during the Reagan years. Greenspan, who had supported the tax cuts, now says that they should expire on schedule, because we are no longer running a surplus but instead are running a deficit.
When you cut taxes, you reduce government revenues, as all economists today agree (find me someone who doesn’t agree — not some old quote from 5 years ago, when there were still a smattering of true believers, but from a contemporary source). Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. You cut taxes and we have to borrow money to make up for the shortfall directly attributable to the tax cut.
That’s why tax cuts should be paid for. Because we are borrowing way too much money and shouldn’t be borrowing money to pay for tax cuts.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, I’ve linked the 2006 REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS by
Jerry Tempalski, U.S. Department of the Treasury – which I continually refer to here as the sole argument INRE revenue stream as it relates to tax policies historically – here multiple times. That you choose not to read it, and discover how the figures and charts were compiled, the several methodologies used for the data, is simply not my fault.
We’ll try one more time… here’s the link to the US Treasury Tax Analysis library for the year 2006. Scroll down until you see the title:
Sep 2006 – 81 (revised): Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills, Jerry Tempalski. There’s a PDF logo there. Click on it, and you can open and save the 24 page study. It will answer all your questions.
This is tunnel vision focused on revenue estimates from Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation to compare the relative size of the revenue effect of the major tax bills enacted after 1939. He used four different measures. We can’t get any more targeted on a subject than that, can we?
It would seem that if you wish to debunk a study, you might try reading it to see what the heck you’re debunking before you race around the internet, searching for quips from economists, don’t you think?
As for the rest… again you attempt to steer this back to deficit instead of tax policy. aka:
We talking about potatoes, not zucchini, Larry. The deficicit is only improved when you spend less than you take in, and pay off some bills. This is not the debate! Stop steering the discussion away from the heart of the matter, which is how tax policy affects revenue…. INCOME, not OUTLAY.
No one disagrees that overspending eats a huge hole in revenues, and then some. The disagreement comes when you decide the cure is to abscond more cash from the taxpayer to boost revenue, when the problem is spending, not revenue.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You should use caution when quoting numbers from Brookings. I’ve already caught them massaging income tax data and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to see them massaging general revenue data as well.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Nah, that wasn’t the reason for the sunset provision.
The tax cut legislation was passed through budget reconciliation (ie the Byrd Rule) which requires an expiration date.
@Aye, thanks for clearing up the sunset provision Senate rules curriculum 101 for Larry. I was really getting tired of repeating myself. 😆
Well duh… think that has anything to do with…. WAIT for it!… SPENDING????
Think it might have something to do with the fact that, during Reagan’s entire term, the House (where appropriation/spending originates) the Dems had majorities ranging in the numbers of 242 to 269?
And that the GOP rare Senate majority (for three sessions only) was only 3-4 members?