IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Thomas Friedman Goes Off On Bush
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/opinion/07friedman.html?hp|http://www.nytimes.c...7friedman.html?hp]

If the Bush-Cheney team seemed to be the right guys to deal with Osama, they seem exactly the wrong guys to deal with Katrina - and all the rot and misplaced priorities it's exposed here at home.

These are people so much better at inflicting pain than feeling it, so much better at taking things apart than putting them together, so much better at defending "intelligent design" as a theology than practicing it as a policy.

For instance, it's unavoidably obvious that we need a real policy of energy conservation. But President Bush can barely choke out the word "conservation." And can you imagine Mr. Cheney, who has already denounced conservation as a "personal virtue" irrelevant to national policy, now leading such a campaign or confronting oil companies for price gouging?

And then there are the president's standard lines: "It's not the government's money; it's your money," and, "One of the last things that we need to do to this economy is to take money out of your pocket and fuel government." Maybe Mr. Bush will now also tell us: "It's not the government's hurricane - it's your hurricane."

An administration whose tax policy has been dominated by the toweringly selfish Grover Norquist - who has been quoted as saying: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" - doesn't have the instincts for this moment. Mr. Norquist is the only person about whom I would say this: I hope he owns property around the New Orleans levee that was never properly finished because of a lack of tax dollars. I hope his basement got flooded. And I hope that he was busy drowning government in his bathtub when the levee broke and that he had to wait for a U.S. Army helicopter to get out of town.

The Bush team has engaged in a tax giveaway since 9/11 that has had one underlying assumption: There will never be another rainy day. Just spend money. You knew that sooner or later there would be a rainy day, but Karl Rove has assumed it wouldn't happen on Mr. Bush's watch - that someone else would have to clean it up. Well, it did happen on his watch.

Besides ripping away the roofs of New Orleans, Katrina ripped away the argument that we can cut taxes, properly educate our kids, compete with India and China, succeed in Iraq, keep improving the U.S. infrastructure, and take care of a catastrophic emergency - without putting ourselves totally into the debt of Beijing.

So many of the things the Bush team has ignored or distorted under the guise of fighting Osama were exposed by Katrina: its refusal to impose a gasoline tax after 9/11, which would have begun to shift our economy much sooner to more fuel-efficient cars, helped raise money for a rainy day and eased our dependence on the world's worst regimes for energy; its refusal to develop some form of national health care to cover the 40 million uninsured; and its insistence on cutting more taxes, even when that has contributed to incomplete levees and too small an Army to deal with Katrina, Osama and Saddam at the same time.

As my Democratic entrepreneur friend Joel Hyatt once remarked, the Bush team's philosophy since 9/11 has been: "We're at war. Let's party."
---------
I'd say that about sums it up.



"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush
Expand Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:37:58 PM EDT
New {bawl} Masterpiece of concision__stay well, Tom!

New his tax giveaway has been revenue neutral at worse
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New 1-datum tunnel vision; ignores the $$ --> 2%. marlowesque

New What reality do you live in?
It seems that you've mistaken Karl Rove's spin machine for facts.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New you mean the quarter with the highest collected revenue EVAH
was a joke? Wasnt true? A lie? Tax reciepts were up till katrina, when tax receipts go up even if taxes go down it is called revenue neutral. Lets see a hammy dance to my little violin
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Only due to record profit-taking, nonsustainable.
New don't confuse these folks with facts.
Government revenue going up just means it would have gone up even more with higher taxes.

And imagine what the shock of $4 gas would have been if the gas tax had been hiked like the quoted writer suggested.

Not even the Dems would want to deal with that fallout.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Yup, facts don't count.
The reason taxes are up is that SHORT-TERM PROFIT TAKING is up - something that all economists I have seen think is completely unsustainable, and will end sooner rather than later.
apt-get install godlike-powers
New I think part of it is repatriated profits too.
[link|http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=atuK1VW9CXRk&refer=columnist_sperling|Gene Sperling on Bloomberg]:

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Here's a multiple choice question:

What is the most absurd aspect of supply-siders' claim that the possible improvement in this year's budget deficit -- to an estimated $333 billion from more than $400 billion in February - -proves that deficit-exploding tax cuts are working and paying for themselves?

Here are your choices:

A) their failure to acknowledge the deep fiscal hole that President George W. Bush's policies have already put us in and the temporary nature of key factors that are contributing to this year's better-than-expected revenue;

B) their ability to attribute to the Bush tax cuts only good economic news but never any disappointing job, wage or market data; or

C) the lowering of standards that allows advocates of supply-side economics to brag about an administration that inherited four years of consecutive surpluses and now is looking at trillions of dollars of future deficits.

This is not an easy question, so it's worth exploring the possible options.

[...]

One-Time Gains

Everyone from Congressional Budget Office Director and former Bush administration official Douglas Holtz-Eakin to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Economy.com say temporary factors such as a one-time corporate tax holiday for repatriated profits and the end of the temporary depreciation bonus for equipment drove much of the rise in revenue.

[...]

Option C may be the best choice.

When Bush came into office, the CBO projected a $433 billion surplus in 2005. Even if the new projection announced yesterday by the White House comes true, it would mark a three- quarter of a trillion dollar deterioration from projections when Bush took office.

As New York University economist Nouriel Roubini has documented, when one breaks down the weakening of our fiscal position, three-quarters of it is accounted for by a collapse in government revenues. Only one-quarter was the result of increased spending.

[...]


Sperling worked for Clinton, and the out-year budget surpluses were illusory, but his side can make a very strong case.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Profit taking from where?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Pointless number
Record revenues still well dwarfed by the record deficits.

Keep your eye on the ball here - its net cash flow that matters.

And apparently, based on NOLA, we Americans aren't getting what we're paying for.

The higher taxing libruls at least provided some value for the money.



"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush
Expand Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:39:51 PM EDT
New Is that highest revenue corrected for inflation?
With time, all dollar figures you see tend to climb, and it is easy for that to hide a real shrinkage.

Of course inflation isn't quite the right measure. Tax revenue is tied more closely to GNP, which grows somewhat faster than inflation. This is true even if the President does nothing. It is true that the President claims that his plan increases revenue by growing the economy. But attempting to demonstrate that the President's actions are responsible for a shift in GNP is notoriously difficult. (And there is a considerable lag, so it takes some time for changes that they are responsible for to show up.) Furthermore the amount of growth that we've seen under this President, while respectable, has not exactly been stellar. (And the measure of things that matter to most of us, like employment statistics and wages, have sucked pretty badly.)

However the following are all verifiable and true statements:

  1. Tax revenues are below projections before Bush entered office. (To be fair, those projections were significantly skewed by the dot com boom.)
  2. The economy has grown less than projected before Bush entered office. (Same note as before.)
  3. Given current economic growth, tax revenues are below what they would have been with the old tax rules.
  4. Tax revenues have consistently been less than the President's budget forecast. As time has progressed, the shortfall has been growing.
  5. Spending has consistently been more than the President's budget forecast. And his budgets haven't exactly been forecasting balanced budgets.
  6. Deficits have therefore been growing very rapidly.

Now [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Modern_presidential_records|here] is an interesting chart of how the debt has fluctuated. It leaves out a lot of important things, like inflation rates and how the economy did. But in recent decades the only president who did worse than George Bush in controlling the debt was the other George Bush. (Who had the excuse that he had an economy that was officially in recession.)

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Great statement
Any data to back it up?
-----------------------------------------
George W. Bush and his PNAC handlers sent the US into Iraq with lies. I find myself rethinking my opposition to the death penalty.

--Donald Dean Richards Jr.
     Thomas Friedman Goes Off On Bush - (tuberculosis) - (13)
         {bawl} Masterpiece of concision__stay well, Tom! -NT - (Ashton)
         his tax giveaway has been revenue neutral at worse -NT - (boxley) - (11)
             1-datum tunnel vision; ignores the $$ --> 2%. marlowesque -NT - (Ashton)
             What reality do you live in? - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                 you mean the quarter with the highest collected revenue EVAH - (boxley) - (7)
                     Only due to record profit-taking, nonsustainable. -NT - (inthane-chan)
                     don't confuse these folks with facts. - (bepatient) - (4)
                         Yup, facts don't count. - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                             I think part of it is repatriated profits too. - (Another Scott)
                             Profit taking from where? -NT - (bepatient)
                         Pointless number - (tuberculosis)
                     Is that highest revenue corrected for inflation? - (ben_tilly)
             Great statement - (Silverlock)

It's like you ran OCR on a photo of a Scrabble board from a game where JavaScript reserved words counted for triple points.
149 ms