Bat One. Your feathers have been ruffled. It shows. You also lost control.
Please get a hold of yourself.
No explanation needed. Just compare our national deficitas it stands today to any date since Bush took office.
Now head over to China and borrow a few billion $$$$.

What a presidential candidate promises and proposes during election time does not materialize
during their term as president.

Especially with Clinton. We’re still waiting for that “middle class tax cut”.

We probably could, if he’d try it. The problem is that his war on the American Consumer will likely cost a lot more than nine hundred billion.

Let’s just see here… I state that part of evaluating the proposals of a presidential candidate should include an accurate assessment of the costs of those proposals. To which you disagree, offering some circular gibberish about voters already knowing those costs, and then blowing the whole subject off with this astounding bit of irrational fluff:

What a presidential candidate promises and proposes during election time does not materialize during their term as president.

In the first place, that sort of sordid cynicism may be how those of you on the Left conduct your political affairs, but any modestly sentient human being observing what has gone on among those of us on/in the Right lately would understand that our side of the aisle cares very deeply about the policies, the ideas and the philosophy and itegrity of our candidates. We expect the people who represent us to be honest.

Just as importantly, of course, what you say is wrong. At least on our side of the aisle it is. Granted, as was pointed out earlier this week, some of us are still awaiting the middle class tax cut that Bill Clinton promised in 1992. So perhaps, for those on the left, promises really don’t mean anything at all. Honesty and integrity are just campaign slogans to Democrats… words without menaing or substance.

But on our side, people are expected to say what they mean, not just whatever is expedient, and we expect our candidates to live up to their promises. Ronald Reagan, as was pointed out yesterday, made and kept his three campaign promises. The current President Bush has been overtaken by the events of 9-11 and the War on Islamist terrorism, but the fact is, of the issues he campaigned on, he has only failed to deliver on unfunded entitlement liability reform… Social Security and Medicare. And that only because congressional Democrats have refused to even sit down and discuss the issue.

My first inclination is to be angry at the sheer stupidity of your remarks here, E. But the more I think about it, the more grateful I am that you’ve provided so stark a reminder of the very basic differences between those on the Left who, like you, care only for the expediency of getting liberals elected, no matter what needs to be said or done to accomplish that goal, and those of us on/in the Right for whom ideas, policy choices, and ultimately integrity matters. I could spend all day describing the expediency and inherent dishonesty of those on the Left, without doing nearly so masterful a job as what your remarks here have demonstrated. Thanks for the lesson.

Jack:

I think we can all agree that the GOP isn’t an unbiased source of information regarding Sen. Obama’s economic plans.

Definitely. I’d like to see something a bit more authoritative than the opposition party’s claims…

And to think I heard Rush Limbaugh claim that elections can’t be bought.

For starters the slaves were an underclass. A lie; slavery was outlawed 140 years ago, so not permanent.
Nowadays the illegals and the permanent welfare recipients are the underclass you idiot. We have4 already told you this, and you tried to deny it. Who’s the idiot?

Another lie from you:

The six trillion or so (probably 7-8 trillion now) spent on this have succeeded in little more than the creation of our nation’s first permanent underclass. What Jim Crow could not “achieve,” the War on the Poor did.
Bike Bubba on February 14, 2008 at 11:08 am

America had, and will allways have an underclass your less than truthfull rhetoric notwithstanding.

It is you who were “less than truthful”, troll.
ellinas on February 14, 2008 at 12:18 pm

For starters the slaves were an underclass.

A lie; slavery was outlawed 140 years ago, so not permanent.
Nowadays the illegals and the permanent welfare recipients are the underclass you idiot. We have4 already told you this, and you tried to deny it. Who’s the idiot?

You are the idiot r108. I said were an underclass. As in past tense you idiot.
Furthermore war on poverty or not you would still have a permanent underclass. Like the Wall-Mart employees.

Besides, Reagan had to restore our military after Carter had gutted it, and finally dealt with the Soviets by outspending them militarily. It worked, which is a very nice return on investment.
Likewise, the Bush deficit is at least partly due to having to rebuild our military after Clinton gutted it, and from responding to terrorism, which Clinton refused to do during his reign. Bush also had to pay off the Clinton-enabled damage from 9/11. Another good return on investment.

More lying and trolling nonsense from you.

Bat One, pay attention. When I made the statement “Their rhetoric (presidential candidates) is almost allways tempered by either reality or congress” I took a shit on you. But you continued to ignore it because you like to live smeard with shit.

Now you are going to claim that you speak Greek?

No. Your statement that I know nothing about Greek is false. You have no idea what I know about Greek, so you lied. You made the claim that I know nothing about Greek, and you are unable to prove that. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

America had, and will allways have a permanent underclass…

Name it, and the reasons for its permanence, troll.

April 1st.

Your own words convict you, troll.

You may disagree with me on the significance of the national debt…

In order to assess its significance, as I said before, you have to express it as a percentage of our national net worth. Until you do that, you are just flapping your gums. Put up or shut up.

We can easily raise $850 Billion through the magic of tax cuts.

WOOF,

Of course its a given that you intended this as a snide slap at Supply Side conservatives, but as it happens, as part of a larger package of spending AND tax cuts, you just might have stumbled onto something here. Blind squirrels and all that.

From economist Daniel Clifton, then of the American Shareholders Association commenting on last year’s CBO report:

When Congress passed the 15 percent reduction on capital gains all we heard from the naysayers is this will produce massive deficits. When Congress extended the 15 percent rate in 2006 we heard the same tired rhetoric – only louder. Now the new leadership want to repeal this tax cut to generate revenue to the federal government. Based on the new data they may want to reconsider whether repealing this tax cut will generate any revenue to the federal government.

Today’s CBO report puts the debate to bed. We were told by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) the capital gains tax cut would “cost” the Federal Treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.

Thus, the initial CBO forecast (January 2004) forecasted capital gains revenue to be $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006.

Well in what could now be considered the worst forecast in modern times we find out today capital gains tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006. For 2005 and 2006 collections nearly doubled the initial forecast.

Translation = total capital gains tax collections over this period were 68 percent higher than forecasted. But even more important, a loss of $5.4 billion is actually a gain of $133 billion. That is a swing of $138 billion in in just short years since the January 2004 forecast. Oops!

The surge of capital gains tax collections following the 2003 tax cut is just absolutely striking although all the indicators such as non-wage income tax collections and IRS data on capital gains income all pointed to this happening. And of course other capital gains tax changes, such as the 1997 capital gains tax cut, produced the same effect.

As economist Don Luskin points out here, there is a marked difference between the static analysis used by those on the Left to justify their policy choices of higher and higher tax rates and spending, and the dynamic analysis used by those in the real world to do honest economic evaluation and forecasting.

Tax cuts, particularly cuts on the taxes imposed on capital, can more than “pay for themselves.” Way, way more!

Then do it. The Dems “War on Poverty”: 6 trillion and counting; start there. When can we expect your first payment?
robert108 on February 14, 2008 at 10:29 am

April 1st.

Ellinas, it is true that the national debt increased as Reagan and later Bush 2 worked to remedy the national security lapses of Carter and Clinton. However, I do not think that this an endorsement of Carter & Clinton’s policies, but rather the opposite.

And Obama wants a return to those policies that led to Al Qaida’s ability to get 19 people on airliners, AND a huge increase in social spending that would CREATE a new dependent class.

Sorry, but I ain’t buying.

ellinas,

Pay attention: You are intellectually constipated, and you have no business attempting rational discourse with those of us who are not.

Bat: As most people know that know anything about econ, the only honest assessment of our national debt is to express it as a percentage of our net worth. Otherwise, it’s just more troll BS.
Besides, the majority of the national debt is money the politicians owe us.

Really?

B.B. That is your oppinion. Mine is different.I will respect your oppinion and leave it at that. We will never agree, for we are entrenched in our point of view.

Budget deficit and national debt.
Good night. We will continue tomorrow.

Oh I don’t think he’s stopping there either.

How much will it cost in lost revenue as more and more people decide there is no reason to work.

I can’t tell you the number of people I’ve known who have said that the only reason they’re working is to earn their health insurance. Of course that’s the way it should be.

[color=darkred]We Are So Screwed[/color]

Pilgrim on February 13, 2008 at 11:17 am

Times 2050…..!

Tax and spend…

Both words of the Greek language of which you know nothing.
Utopia, imaginary and ideal country. That is where you wish you could live. A country where your utopian individualistic ideals would be the law of the land. Like I said: Everything everybody does affects you. You cannot insulate yourself from society.

e,

The fact that mine IS bigger than yours, is no excuse for you to try and change the subject when it has become apparent that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The subject was as I’ve described… as anyone can read for themselves. You jumped in to make your unsubstantiated accusations, and then hightail it for the nearest exit when it became obvious that you were in way over your head and couldn’t back up any of the accusations you’d made.

As I noted above, its a typical lefty tactic, and to be honest, one that I would have thought was unworthy of you. My Bad!

Ellinas, I’ve never seen you prove anyone to be a liar. Again, grammar school for you, not rhetoric and argument.

I think we can all agree that the GOP isn’t an unbiased source of information regarding Sen. Obama’s economic plans.

For example, they probably used the highest figures possible, even when they could easily been trimmed back. They also probably don’t include any of Sen. Obama’s spending cuts.

On the other hand, the GOP might just be lying. They do that sometimes.

America had, and will allways have an underclass your less than truthfull rhetoric notwithstanding.

He said “permanent” underclass, troll. You lie again.

Fear mongering from the GOP. And the most amazing thing is their scare tactic is working. Some of you that did not support McCain are now falling in line.

Ellinas, there is a difference between an underclass and a permanent one. Prior to the Great Society, we had poor people, of course, and many of them were in poverty that would astound us today. One person in ten will always have lower income than the other nine.

A permanent underclass, however, implies that it would always be the same guy. Prior to the Great Society, this wasn’t the case. When we started paying people to have babies if only they’d refrain from getting a job or getting married, we started seeing whole generations of people languishing in the same squalor their grandparents suffered.

Now if you cannot process an adjective in a meaningful way, as your false accusation indicates, I’ll thank you very much to go back to grammar school and stop accusing me of lying.

“they probably used the highest figures possible, even when they could easily been trimmed back”

Seriously, are you that naive. When the hell was the last time a politician put a dollar figure on a program(s) that was even remotely close. I figured it would be conservative to triple the costs of BO’s programs

I’m waiting for all the usual suspects to come in and bitch and moan about what Hill or Barry’s new spending would do to the deficit. Oh that’s right, there are no limits to spending as long as we have a number of citizens to confiscate from, spend and tax is all good, can’t have any cuts you know.

Ronald Reagan made three promises, all of which he kept.

We will never agree, for we are entrenched in our point of view.

No; BB is stating facts, you are simply stating opinion based on nonsense.

You can say that again.

The GOP found its voice at election time? Who said that?

The GOP can’t find it’s own behind in its own underwear right now. With both hands. That’s why we’re being left to opportunistic bottom feeders like Obama and Hillary.

GOP. Gutless Old Pinheads.

We Are So screwed.

e,

If you are going to challenge my facts, specifically that the deficit will go up again as a result of the silly so-called “stimulus package”, or that interest rates have been declining, or that we have spent the better part of the past two years in an interest rate inversion, than by all means do so. That is if you’ve got something to back up your implied disagreement. Certainly I’ll be willing to discuss it with you, if only to show that I am correct in what I’ve stated.

But if you are going to impugn my integrity over any of this you had goddamn well better have something more substantive to offer than the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about and your fucking hormones are out of whack at the moment!

If you had it in mind to suggest that interest rates are declining because of recent action by the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee, then you had better be able to explain the what, why, and how of that interest rate inversion I mentioned, which has long preceded action by Bernanke and company.

The Fed controls the short term interest rates, the market the long term. Looking at the yield chart on this page makes you pretty sure the Fed was far too aggressive raising interest rates.

Thanks, BatOne, but I liked Whistlers comment on my (inadvertent double) post better. :^)

Seriously, well said.

Actually, false, ellinas. The trick is that two minimum wage incomes raise a couple above the poverty threshold for a family of four, and people who actually learn to work rarely stay at minimum wage for very long. There is a remarkable amount of mobility in social class for those who work, marry, and don’t become addicted to drugs and alcohol.

And for that matter, even slavery wasn’t completely rigid. Many owners realized that involuntary labor was completely unmotivated, and thus started to pay their “servants” and give them the opportunity to buy their freedom.

Again, Obama is proposing an extension of a system that has been more effective at creating underclasses than anything since Appomattox, and arguably was similar in effectiveness to that which prevailed before. That should sober us.

ellinas,

I intended that it show. I don’t like having my integrity questioned… particularly by someone who obviously doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

Besides, unlike the leftwing trolls who throw foul adjectives about like so many feces flinging monkeys, I find that limiting that sort of invective makes it much more effective when it is used.

Now, then, tell me what you know about interest rate inversions, and what it is that you think you kow that contradicts anything I’ve stated here.

e,

Your feelings about debt in general and the national debt in particular are duly noted, and I can’t begin to tell you how enormously relieved I am to know all this.

That said, shall we get back to the questions at hand… questions YOU raised regarding the accuracy of Mr. Obama’s proposed spending totals and the question of whether Democrat candidates are possessed of sufficient integrity to be taken seriously when they open their mouths, and lastly which of us, you or I knows what he is talking about with regard to
fiscal and monetary policy.

Or are you going to try to change the subject yet again to avoid answering questions which you raised yourself?

ellinas,

Part of the evaluation process for any such candidate’s proposals should surely be the honest cost of what is proposed, don’t you agree?

Whether a candidate can deliver or not ultimately depends on the number of people who believe those costs are justified under the circumstances.

The deficit, which has been declining far more rapidly than expected, will go back up again now that the so-called “stimulus package” has been enacted. Yet knowing this, interest rates continue to edge downward, and in point of fact, we have been in an interest rate inversion for the better part of the past two years. Odd that!

Similarly, when the Reagan tax cuts were passed the scream from the Left was “deficits as far as the eye could see.” Yet if you track interest rates from the inception of those tax cuts forward, they track pretty steadily downward. All of which suggests that a growing economy, as opposed to the static, and stagnant model offered up so tirelessly by the Left, can more than handle the deficits if they are a DE-creasing percentage of GDP.

Think of it as a family. As the family income increases the additional monthly payments on a car for the kid, a cabin on some acreage in the mountains, a condo at the beach, or college tuition becomes more possible. The additional debt becomes more affordable if properly managed.

Bat: I don’t think the troll understands what “evaluation process” means.

Whistler,

I know that… and you know that. But does ellinas know that?

Actually, FOMC only “controls” the overnight Fed Funds Rate. The Discount Rate is actually a so-called “target” rate. All other rates are “set” by the market.

The six trillion or so (probably 7-8 trillion now) spent on this have succeeded in little more than the creation of our nation’s first permanent underclass. What Jim Crow could not “achieve,” the War on the Poor did.
Bike Bubba on February 14, 2008 at 11:08 am

America had, and will allways have an underclass your less than truthfull rhetoric notwithstanding.

Bat One he means what he says. but can he deliver?
Well lets see. Reagan a limited govt. prez left us massive deficits. So will Bush.

ellinas,

“Fear mongering”? “Scare tactics”?

Why don’t you simply put down the rhetoric for a moment and focus on the numbers instead. If you’ve got some authoritative citations that show that both the RNC numbers and those of the NTU are inaccurate, why not simply share them in rebuttal and dispense with all the hyperbole?

Got anything to offer us?

robert108 I have proved you alier on numerous occasions. Don’t get me started again.

And all this from who? The GOP you say? they found their voice during election time? Wow!!!
This from the party of borrow an spend. Amazing.

We can easily raise $850 Billion through the magic of tax cuts.