Say Anything Blog

"Clearly, Americans feel safe right now”
Don’t worry Justin, by the time Rove gets finished with us in November we’ll be quaking in our boots.
Just doin’ what he does best.

gregdn,

Those of you on the left fringe have a well-earned reputation for clever quips and snide repartee, but you have yet to demonstrate that you have any sort of substance behind all that fluff.  Here’s your chance to prove that you really should be taken seriously.  Explain just what it is that should be done to ensure the continuation of Social Security… and when.

Take your time.  The Democrats have already pissed away 4 years obstinately ignoring the problem.

Real GDP
Percent Change From Preceding Period
2002 2003 2004 2005
1.6 2.5 3.9 3.2

Anemia

Worst job growth in 40 years
Stagnant wages.

massive deficit Reductions

Not in this administration.

It’s the Tax Cuts Stupid

Maybe you are right.

Woof, you do know that federal tax receipts have gone up since the Bush tax cuts, right?  In fact, those tax receipts have actually outpaced spending to reduce the federal deficit.

We’re still not in a very good position, but the tax cuts ain’t the problem.  It’s the spending.

Now, which flavor of entitlement spending would you like to talk about cutting first?  Since you’re oh-so-conerned about the federal deficits and entitlement spending encompasses 2/3’s (and growing) of our federal budget…

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

WOOF,

Misguided as always, but borderline brilliant, nonethless.

If the Bush tax cuts, modest as they were by historic standards, have provided no more than a 2.9% average GDP growth over the relevant period, then clearly the answer is even steeper cuts in tax rates.

Welcome aboard!

Will 4-5% GDP Growth, massive deficit Reductions, sustained sob growth, rising wages and productivity be thrown out the window over Iraq?

A Freudian slip?  Or are you of **THEM** !!!1!11!!

To be fair, the deficit reductions are nice but just scratch the surface, not to mention that the Bush administration is largely responsible for building up the deficit in the first place.

That said, tax cuts good, entitlement spending (generally) bad.  Hopefully the next republican to gain the White House remembers this (along with the power of the veto).

To be fair, the deficit reductions are nice but just scratch the surface…

Angus,

It is a hallmark of the Left to focus only on the superficial.  Whether this is a simple matter of intellectual laziness or the result of some sort of congential disability is still an open question.

The deficits continue to grow. That is why the debt limit was raised to 9 Trillion in March.

Revenue raised is not enough to offset revenue lost through tax cuts. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Geez, are we visiting this question again after we have beat it to death in other blogs.  The simple answer to deficit spending is not to raise taxes but to cut costs and the costs that need to be cut are entitlements which eat up about 2/3 of the federal budget.  Even worse these entitlements have automatic cost of living increases.  Just eliminating the increases would get the government closer to a balanced budget.

Bat One said:

It is a hallmark of the Left to focus only on the superficial. Whether this is a simple matter of intellectual laziness or the result of some sort of congential disability is still an open question.

I’m sorry, is this directed at me personally?  If not, I’m not sure why it was stated following a quote from my earlier post.  If so, then I guess I don’t see what I said that would lead one to believe that I am “focus[ing] on the superficial”.

It could be that I am simply not following your train of thought; if this is the case I apologize.  But I would think the statement right after the one quoted would explain my stance re: tax cuts vs. entitlement spending.

The deficits continue to grow. That is why the debt limit was raised to 9 Trillion in March.

WOOF,

Perhaps this would be easier if you understood that federal budget deficits and overall federal debt are 2 entirely different things.  Once you get out of the habit of using the terms, and the concepts, interchangeably, you’ll find that the conceptual continuity will make things a lot clearer.  Federal budget deficits are declining.  Period.

Now then, you offer,

Revenue raised is not enough to offset revenue lost through tax cuts. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

This is one of the Left’s more ubiquitous, and tiresome, mantras.  It is an article of faith among those who studious reject the notion of faith.  And I believe that if you are going to continue to spout this petty little cliche, you shold be able to vigorously defend its authenticity.

Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves?  Prove it!  Prove that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, as you stated here, WOOF.  Take all the bandwidth that you need, but prove that what you say is true!  I’m betting you can’t do it.

Angus,

My statement was NOT directed at you at all.  I offered it merely to demonstrate that your statement about “scratching the surface” is indeed true.

The question of budget deficits is a mantra of the Left, though as we are about to see demonstrated by WOOF, they have little real understanding of the problem.  But rather than address the core issues, entitlement spending and unfunded federal liabilities, they carp about deficits as a means of attacking Republicans in general and Bush in particular.  Another example of creative avoidance on a national scale by the economically ignorant, arithmetically challenged, Left.

My apologies if I mispoke and you misconstrued my meaning.

The size of the YEARLY federal deficit has declined, each year the deficit is added to the national Debt. The National debt represents the accumulated deficits in the Government’s budgets over the years.

I’ll go with the Dept of the Treasury which says measure it dynmaicaly or statically tax cuts don’t
pay for themselves.

Treasury’s estimates suggest that, under the best long-run scenario, the tax cuts’ boost to tax payments would offset less than 10 percent of their initial cost.

Dynamics

I think the economy is OK, but Iraq’s going to overshadow everything if we don’t either decide to put in enough troops to do it right or withdraw.

All of the economic indicators show the economy booming except one: the yapping dogs of the media.  As long as they continue to report as if the economy is in tatters, people will believe it.  It doesn’t matter if you are making money hand over fist.  If the media says times are tough, then people will believe that someone else is having it tough, so they still sympathize.  This is true even if they don’t know anyone who is struggling.  It’s just human nature.

A couple of days ago, one of our local TV stations did a report on shopping for school supplies.  The reporter started the piece by saying, “With rising gas prices and a struggling economy, the cost of school supplies is tough for some families>“ The report went on to suggest that most people are having to choose between food and school supplies.

As laughable as it sounds, there are those among us who believe that kind of tripe.  AS long as the media is allowed to report things the way they do, that’s not going to change.

Woof: There is no “cost” to tax cuts.  The social spending can be cut at least 50% with no harm to the economy; in fact, it would benefit us tremendously.  The only “cost” is to the political class, which does nothing but divert capital from productive use.
The govt types are squealing because their dole is being cut.  Keeping our own money is the best thing for us.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Rober108:
“The social spending can be cut at least 50% with no harm to the economy; in fact, it would benefit us tremendously.”

I agree.  Now, why aren’t Republicans proposing it?

Why don’t Dems do it?  At least the Reps have cut taxes, which is a step in the right direction.  I don’t know if you appreciate how little of our govt is elected.  The inertia of the Civil Service System(a gift from the socialist New Deal) is incredible.  No administration, no matter how well intended, can change it overnight.  Our President and the rest of the Republicans have been subjected to an MSM jihad for five and a half years, and then there’s that little thing about worldwide terrorism, which was allowed to grow and prosper for the eight years of the previous administration.  In addition, the President is the President of all the people, and in my opinion, goes a little too far to appease the lefties in the population.  That’s the short answer.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Are all deficits the responsibility of the presidents in office?  Because the deficit hasn’t gone down in decades.

You can blame presidents, sure.  And Congresses.  But the real blame is non-discresionary spending - ie SS, Medicare, Medicaid.  And we’ve recently seen what happens when SS tries to get fixed.

Robert108:

Republicans are going the opposite direction: look at the $700 billion drug thing.

This is one of the reasons I left the fold.  Republicans are acting like Democrats.

So, you support the Dems by attacking the Republicans?  That makes no sense.
BTW, not supporting antidrug policy is political suicide, and you know it.  The MSM would crucify any Republican not actively being against drug usage as “favoring drug use”.  Try another argument.  That dog won’t hunt.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Presidents and Congresses can make small changes in the economy; witness the benefits of the tax cuts, not only under Bush, but under JFK and Reagan as well.  The real problem is us.  We have been sold the New Deal Marxist concept that social spending benefits us at all; that it will lift up society.  The reality, which has been demonstrated over and over again, is that govt spending only destroys incentive and morality.  It is Marxist reallocation of wealth for social purposes, and is economically harmful, with benefits mostly going to the govt employee sector, with some going to small special interest groups.  Leaving money in the pockets of those who earned it, except for some defense spending and infrastructure support, is the most beneficial course for the country as a whole.
Until we disabuse ourselves of the belief that govt spending is beneficial, we will continue to elect politicians who promise to spend our money better than we can.  We need more individual independence, not less.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

BTW, not supporting antidrug policy is political suicide, and you know it. The MSM would crucify any Republican not actively being against drug usage as “favoring drug use”. Try another argument. That dog won’t hunt.

Robert, I think he means medicare prescription drugs, not the war on drugs.

And I thought Bush was nuts to push through the largest increase in Federal spending since the Johnson Administration too.  How can you advocate smaller government and yet push through massive spending increases?

BatOne,

I see now.  I did misunderstand what you wrote.  The fault lies with me.

I think one big misconception with tax cuts is that many people don’t understand that the extra capital realized from lower taxes goes back into the economy.  (I obviously don’t mean that as an absolute.) When Joe Millionaire benefits from a tax cut, the money doesn’t get put in a sock under his mattress.  This is just as true for Joe Middleclass.

Robert108:

The $700 Billion drug thing I was talking about is the Medicare part D drug plan, not an anti drug program.

“So, you support the Dems by attacking the Republicans”

Not sure what you mean by that.  When Repubs are wrong I SAY SO.  Believe me, I criticize the Dems a lot more; they just aren’t in power.

Justin: I generally agree with you.  We don’t need any more govt programs; in fact we need far fewer govt programs. The problem is that if the President wanted to cut Medicare spending, the MSM would crucify him for “being against old people”.  SSDD.  It is worthwhile to know that spending is lower as a percentage of GDP than it was in LBJ’s day, but when you want to make a point, use the numbers that favor your point.  Gross money, true; percentages, false.  Same with tax cuts, which are really tax rate cuts.  There is no cut in tax revenues, which is why the MSM lies about it.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Gregdn: Correction noted.  The logic is the same, though, with a different group.  Check out my comment to Justin.
The illusion that the Dems aren’t in power is illustrated every day by the way they control the agenda in this country through their allies in the MSM.  We are constantly dealing with their agenda, not the Republican agenda.  Haven’t you noticed that?  The reporting on the Iraq war, not to mention the Israel-Hez war, is almost a complete fabrication to fit the Dem fringe left antiwar philosophy, not conservative principles.  Clinton called his policy meetingplace “The War Room”, and that is exactly the way today’s Dems approach national politics.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

WOOF,

Over the years, I have found that it almost always more prudent, and more educational, to go to the source document, rather than rely on the interpretation of a “reporter” or media analyst.

Such is certainly the case with the Treasury report you cite above, as interpreted by the Washinton Post junior economics writer, Nell Henderson.

I’ve only skimmed through the 30 page report, but I did find a few nuggets to chew on until there is time to thoroughly evaluate the report on my own.

Previous Treasury analysis using the Macroeconomic Advisors macro-econometric model estimated that without the tax relief passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003, as many as 3 million fewer jobs would have been created by the end of 2004 and real GDP would have been as much as 3.5 to 4.0 percent lower.

Interesting, because that is certainly not the conclusion as detailed by WaPo.

… this model likely overstates the economic cost of deficit finance of temporary relief as the rate of return to government bonds in the model is greater than the rate of growth in GNP.  Historically, the average return on government debt is below the average growth rate of the economy, which implies it might not be necessary to increase taxes in the future in order to stabilize the government debt ratio (the ratio of government debt to the overall economy or GDP).  Some research suggests that the need to raise future tax rates to pay for temporary tax relief only occurs with a small probability.

It’s also worth noting that question of whether, and how, to “pay for tax relief”, as detailed in this report you cite, use tax year 2007 as the baseline.  Thus the conclusions of the report with regard to that issue, your issue, WOOF, address the period 2007 through 2017… not current considerations as implied by you and WaPo.

Finally… if the revenue cost of tax relief is financed through future tax increases, then the way future taxes are increased would greatly affect the long-run results; the more the future tax increases affect marginal rates, the more future economic output (GDP growth) will suffer as a consequence.

So, apparently the “cost” of tax cuts isn’t a subject to be considered on a stand-alone basis, but should instead be taken in the context of overall economic considerations.  This hints at a delightful conundrum for those on the Left… namely that to have the question of deficits and the “cost” of tax cuts addressed in a meaningful manner, they must first acknowledge the overall economic effectiveness of cutting marginal tax rates in the first place.  In other words, Art Laffer wins!  Again!

The problem is that if the President wanted to cut Medicare spending, the MSM would crucify him for “being against old people”.

If the President wanted to cut medicare spending, the first step would be to NOT INCREASE IT BY $700B for new programs.  He created a completely new program that spent $700B.  Let’s not quibble about percentage of GDP or how large the increase was.  The fact is that Republicans should be about cutting entitlements to balance the budget and sustain the economy.  When the President enacts legislation to drastically increase entitlement spending, someone else’s job to cut spending later is $700B more difficult.  Once these programs are created they do not go away.  See Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc. 

Point 1.  You want to balance the budget, cut entitlement spending, don’t raise taxes.  Medicare Prescription Drugs runs completely contrary to saving social security, cutting entitlement spending, etc.

Point 2.  The economy is doing quite well.  I know that everyone has their complaints, but we are growing at twice the pace of every large industrial country (France, Germany, Japan, etc.), regardless of what the naysayers can say about it.  Unemployment continues to be far lower than most other industrialized nations.  Deficit as a percentage of GDP is also far lower than comparable nations.  Whatever utopia people want to live in (and for most it is 1997-2000), we paid the price for it in the last recession and with the constant Fed increases that all but shut the economy down.

Solid growth, but not too rapid.  Low unemployment but not too low.  Rising productivity.  Rising wages that have been rising at the same rate as under Clinton.  Bad mouth the economy all you want, but every day I get my bank statement and paycheck and the economy looks good to me.

Just answer this question honestly:  are you better off financially now than ten years ago?

Robert108:

You astound me!  Repubs control both houses and the Presidency, and the reason they can’t get anything done is.... The Media?

If Republicans would be more self critical they could return the party to its proud roots.

Sorry, Robert, that was more generic after your quote not directed at you.

Greg,

Filibuster.  Come on.  Don’t try that shit.  You know the honest truth is that unless they get 6 Democrats to side with them, nothing comes to a vote.

Look no further than energy policy.  Stuck for four years since it involves ANWAR and no Dems will touch their sacred cow.

Angus,

I appreciate the courtesy, but the fault is mine for not being articulate enough in the first place.

As for public misconceptions, the air is literally rife with them.  There is probably no subject on which the general public is as thoroughly uneducated and misinformed as economics in general and government economic policies in particular. 

Certainly “many people don’t understand that the extra capital realized from lower taxes goes back into the economy.” But many people have no idea what capital is in the first place, or the difference between money and capital, or money and value.

As for Joe Millionaire and Joe Middleclass, I’m probably one of the few people that believes that the only “equal” or “fair” approach to taxation is for everyone to pay something, rather than fewer and fewer folks paying more and more.  Thus, as long as we are stuck with the current, inane income tax system, Joe Mill should be paying less, while Joe Mid should probably be paying more.

Justin:
Your point on the energy bill is well taken, but come on… filibusters alone can’t explain the lack of productivity for this congress.
Personally I think a little less time spent on flag burning and gay marriage would’ve meant more time to legislate important issues.

gregdn: My point about the MSM, which you failed to address, was the reality that we are hung up on the Dem agenda on a daily basis.  You can rant all you want about a Republican majority, but why don’t the Republicans control the national agenda? They want more tax cuts, more commitment to the war on terrorism, reform of SS, and they can’t get any of that done.  Why is that?  The MSM lies to promote the Dem agenda, then lies about polls to convince the political class that, despite voting for Republicans, the public really wants the Dem agenda.  Even the President has to bow to this propaganda jihad, which is why he supported the Medicare increase, IMO. 
I happen to think the integrity of our social fabric is important, and so the illusion that flag-burning is “freedom of speech”, killing babies is a “right to privacy”, and what gay relationships have to do with the reality of real marriage are important issues.  It is a false construct to think that all those issues are compartmentalized.  We need it all to be America.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Greg:

A bill must pass both houses of congress and any differences reconciled in conference before it can be sent to the President and signed into law.  In the Senate a bill is debated until there is a motion for cloture at which time a vote is taken.  If the motion to end debate fails (60 votes are required) then the debate continues until a cloture motion is successful.  There are 55 Republicans in the Senate.  There are not that many conservative Republicans - 50 at most.  Even at 55 it requires 5 Democrats to vote with the majority to invoke cloture.  Therefore Senate bills that actually pass that house of congress are different from the version that passed the house in many ways.  If there can be no reconciliation between those versions in committee, the legislation is effectively dead.  Monolithic obstruction by Democrats in recent times has lead to compromises that conservatives (and self identifying “liberals") find distasteful at best and unacceptable at worst.  It also results in the inaction you’ve expressed concern about.

Robert108:

Marriage is the province of the states.  It’s not a federal issue.  At one point in their history Republicans were staunch defenders of state’s rights vs federal encroachment. I have no problem with a state banning abortion.
Totally disagree on the flag burning.  It’s a non-issue from my standpoint.  Perhaps we’ll have to ‘agree to disagree’ on that one.

Need to correct my last post: should be “I have no problem with a state banning gay marriage”

Even the President has to bow to this propaganda jihad, which is why he supported the Medicare increase, IMO.

Come on Robert.  You are better than that.  You know as well as I do that he campaigned on the issue along with No Child Left Behind in 2000 and repeated it in 2004.  So what you are saying is that he believes that it is better to pander to the old folks to get elected than stand on his principles and do what is right?

That is a mischaracterization of what he is all about.  Fact is that Bush is a fiscal moderate and social conservative, not the opposite.  He is not Newt.  Not Milton Friedman.  Not a Fiscal conservative that wants to do away with entitlements.  And neither is congress.  They talk the tough talk on cutting spending and entitlements and are better than the race baiting and pandering Democrats, but Bush passed this legislation because he WANTED TO, not because of the “propoganda jihad”.

Let’s get back to reality that Bush is a pragmatic leader who is committed to his foreign policy agenda and the domestic social agenda, as well as the pro-business open market and Capitalist agenda that most of agree with, but he is certainly not a fiscal conservative.  Hence the lack of vetos on any legislation or budgets or pork or spending.  And as Republicans, we should recognize these flaws in his policies and openly debate them and push the Whitehouse and Congress to change them, not hide behind the crap you just spouted about “the media propoganda jihad” making the President spend money on these programs.  Say anything you want about Bush, but he is damned near completely immune and oblivious to the media and polls.  He does what he wants to do and media and polls be damned.

You cannot say that Congress is too busy worrying about stem cells, gay marriage, flag buring, pay raises, etc., etc., to do their job.

Their job is to debate any and all issues.  The fact is that the Senate is where all of these debates are occuring and part of that is because the Senate’s job is to do exactly that… debate almost endlessly until someone is able to get 60 votes together to decide on an issue.

The Senate and House both had majorities on the Minimum Wage increase (which I am glad did not pass and no self respecting Capitalist should support), but could not get Cloture in the Senate, hence no minimum wage increase.  The list keeps going.  We would have 7 Supreme Court Justices right now if not for the Gang of 14 that prevented Filibusters from forcing massive battles during the judicial confirmations.  And note that one of the Moderate Democrats that allowed Alito and Roberts to get confirmed is a guy named Joe Lieberman in Connecticut who the Dems booted out of their nomination and possibly out of the Senate.

Moderate Democrats are what is needed to move along legislation.  And that is almost an oxymoron with guys like Soros and Moore now able to back up their threats with huge money to defeat any Democrat that does not wholeheartedly follow their agenda in lockstep.

I think the economy is OK, but Iraq’s going to overshadow everything if we don’t either decide to put in enough troops to do it right or withdraw.

what I see as the main problem with Iraq does not have anything to do with us per se.  The problem with Iraq is the Fanatical Shia radicals we have empowered.  These people are more theologically radical than Saddam himself, Iraq was a relatively secular country under Saddam. i.e. more in the mold of Jordan and UAE/Dubai than in the mold of Saudi Arabia and Iran in that regard.

Iraq is in the hands of Shia radicals who main mission seem to be modeling their new nation after Iran.

In terms of religious freedom I see Iraq regressing, not progressing, from what it was under Saddam, ..at least a large part of the country:

e.g. goats in some Shia areas are now required to wear diapers.

e.g. Unwavaring support for Iran and Hezbullah

e.g. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq , Iraqs biggest political party basically a pawn of Iran, ..its militia trained by Iran.

e.g. al-Jafaari leader of the Islamic Dowa party, al-Maliki’s party, wanting to model Iraq after Iran.

e.g. Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani , the person widely considered to be most influential within Iraq is Iranian, ...borned and raised:

Ali al-Sistani was born in Mashhad, Iran (Persia) to a family of religious scholars. His grandfather, for whom he was named, was a famous scholar who had studied at Najaf. Sistani’s family comes from the area of Iran known as Sistan, which accounts for the title “al-Sistani” in his name. Sistani began his religious education as a child, beginning in Mashhad, and moving on to study at the Shi’a holy city of Qom in central Iran.

Justin: Your detailed evaluation of the President is pretty accurate, as far as I can see.  I think he really wants to be the President of all the people, and has gone too far in that respect a couple of times.  He isn’t a Conservative by my standards, and my favorite part of his administration is his decisive action against terrorism and dictatorship.  I would re-elect him on that alone, especially after eight years of permissiveness toward international terrorism brought us 9/11.  If we lose to the terrorists, none of the rest of it matters.

Gregdn: The “gay marriage” amendment is specifically about the lefties’ use of the judiciary to push their minority agenda on the rest of us.  The truth about marriage(an ancient tradition, btw) is that if one state changes it, there is tremendous pressure for the rest to recognize it, so it’s really a federal issue, even though you are technically right.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

especially after eight years of permissiveness toward international terrorism brought us 9/11

oNLY eight years of bad policy towards international terrorism?

Bat there is no free lunch.
The treasury report (an arm of the Executive ) attempts to put a nice face on the economic showing after Bush tax cuts or rate cuts.

Tax revenue has increased and now reaching Clinton numbers . 5 years of deficits, below average real GDP, wage stagnation, and below average job growth. That is the reality of the rate cuts.
Still VooDoo.

aNON: Worldwide terrorism has been in the public eye since at least 1972, and has been ignored by every administration, with the exception of getting the hostages back from Iran and the bombing of Libya, both by Reagan.  The “permissiveness"(my actual term, not the one you used) of the previous administration was in spite of an attack on US soil, the 1993 WTC bombing.  The permissiveness included gutting our intel capabilities(through the shrinking of assets), refusing, on nit-picking legalistic grounds, the handover to us of the architect of that attack, and the wall of separation between the intel agencies that could have prevented the attack directly.  Bad policy is not what I was indicating.  It was far worse than that.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

massive deficit Reductions When and how? A good indicator would be where the deficit stood when Bush took over and where it is now.

Bat there is no free lunch.

WOOF,

Your predictable choice of cliches betrays you yet again.  The unspoken assumption underlying your comment is that it is government which has first claim on all the wealth, and those who create that wealth, whether it’s the next great software entreprenuer or some guy in Colorado holding a bake sale, their place in line is after the taxman.  Nonsense!

All you’ve managed to do is offer a modestly compellng argument for a sustained reduction in entitlement spending.  Good for you.  I applaud that goal whole heartedly.

More amusing is your about face on the Treasury report from which you were quoting with rapt enthusiasm a few short hours ago.  So now it’s merely an administration puff piece, in your humble estimation?  Apparently you STILL haven’t read the report.  Or is it that you just don’t understand it?

massive deficit Reductions When and how? A good indicator would be where the deficit stood when Bush took over and where it is now.

How about from last year to this year?  Ah, so we are comparing things to Clinton’s administration.  That is what all things are measured against?

Let’s see, Bush inherited a recession that started in 2000 due to the dot.com burst and inherited an unsustainable unemployment level that was unprecedented.  Job growth and wage inflation was occuring and the stock market crashed due to the NASDAQ runup. 

Let’s keep in mind that all of the economic numbers from 1996-2000 were completely distorted because of the boom in the NASDAQ and tech stocks as well as several major telecom and energy corporate scandals like Qwest, MCI, Enron, etc.  Bush was dealt an environment riddled with corporate scandles, an unsustainable unemployment level, and 9-11, as well as a stock market that in his first year dropped by 25%.  The NASDAQ by over 50%.

What we know is that from 2003 to current day, the Administration’s policies have created massive job growth, reduced unemployment by 1.5% from the high water mark of 6.3% in 2003, and reduced the deficit by over $200B dollars from the projections just two years ago.

It is dishonest to ignore 9-11, the dot.com bust, the corporate scandles, and world events, when discussing the economy.  The comparisons to Clinton fail to account for Clinton’s hand in the 2001 Recession or for his inheriting the post-1992 recession.  The strength of his economic conditions also fails to account for the 1994 Contract with America and the Republican Congress’s reforms on taxes and welfare policy.

I know that we both can see the economy through different lenses, but please answer my question posed earlier--are YOU PERSONALLY better off today than in 2001 or in 1996?  Compare your situation today to that 5 years ago or 10 years ago.  And answer honestly.  Do you make more money?  Is your home worth more?  Do you have more in savings?  Are your investments more stable?

Go start asking Wall Street if they prefer the 1999 stock market where people were throwing darts at IPO’s and investing in stocks based on fluff, since any dot.com was a sure winner.  No one likes an economy or a stock market without rules such as PE ratios and where speculation drives the market, not facts and earnings.  Ultimately, markets like that are due to collapse and ripe with fraud and false expectations.  And that is what happened.

Justin,

I am disappointed to say the least.  You rightly focus on the NASDAQ/dot.com bust and the corporate scandals such as the ever popular Enron, Qwest, and MCI.

But you’ve completely neglected Global Crossing, Ltd., the company which turned former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe’s $100,000 investment into a profit of over $18,000,000 in just over a year, and which, oddly enough, contirbuted over $1 million to the Clinton Library fund.  The corporate officers made out every bit as well as did the Enron crowd, while the employees’ 401-k funds disappeared into the ether.

Bat: Good catch.  It is strange that everyone is so full of venom for Ken Lay, but just gives Global Crossing a pass, when they were far more evil.  Maybe it’s political.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

R108,

I think McAuliffe, for all his obvious corruption, was a great DNC chairman.  Appointed afterthe Clinton/Gore Lincon Bedroom/No controllijng legal authority re-election, he managed to oversee a loss in every single major election that came under his purview, from AlGore in 2000, the 2002 midterms, Gray Davis’ ouster and Bustamonte’s loss to Arnold in California, to the Kerry campaign of 2004 that was seared, seared into our memory… before it wasn’t.

For all his shoot-from-the-hip lunacy, Howard Dean still has a way to go to catch up to the legacy of Terry McAuliffe.

Bat: Shouldn’t that be: “...because of his obvious corruption...”?  He was running with a pretty fast crowd, wasn’t he?  Had to keep up.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

R108,

I stand corrected, sir!

Still, when you think about it Clinton missed a golden opportunity for a major meaningless gesture by appointing Terry McAuliffe as DNC chairman.  If he had not been caught as a Clintn bagman and conduit for illegal Chicom campaign contributions, the DNC job could have gone to Johnny Chung instead of McAuliffe.  The first Asian-American to hold such an (cough! cough!) esteemed post.  As I said, a major meaningless gesture.  exactly the sort that Clinton was so-o-o good at.

I was simply not aware of the money connections in Global Crossings.  Simply the BK.  One of my good friends lost his job at GC during the BK.

I fail to see the Howard Dean-Enron references and the implication that only republicans are corrupt.  It just does not wash.

I am more of a cattle futures kind of guy than a tech stocks speculator myself.  Hillary hooked me up with some tips.