Post #277,282
1/3/07 11:50:53 AM
|
More proof that Bush is living in Neverland.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?hp&ex=1167886800&en=026ee57f14055a10&ei=5094&partner=homepage|NY Times]: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he'll submit a proposal to balance the budget in five years and exhorted Congress to ''end the dead of night process'' of quietly tucking expensive pet projects into spending bills.
[...]
''If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate,'' Bush wrote.
[...] This is laughable. [link|http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf|CBO] (14 page .pdf): p.2 \n __________Deficits____________ \nYear Revenue Outlays On-Budget SocSec USPS Total\n1980 517.1 590.9 -73.1 -1.1 0.4 -73.8\n1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 -0.1 -79.0\n1982 617.8 745.7 -120.6 -7.9 0.6 -128.0\n1983 600.6 808.4 -207.7 0.2 -0.3 -207.8\n1984 666.5 851.9 -185.3 0.3 -0.4 -185.4\n1985 734.1 946.4 -221.5 9.4 -0.1 -212.3\n1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 * -221.2\n1987 854.4 1,004.1 -168.4 19.6 -0.9 -149.7\n1988 909.3 1,064.5 -192.3 38.8 -1.7 -155.2\n1989 991.2 1,143.8 -205.4 52.4 0.3 -152.6\n1990 1,032.1 1,253.1 -277.6 58.2 -1.6 -221.0\n1991 1,055.1 1,324.3 -321.4 53.5 -1.3 -269.2\n1992 1,091.3 1,381.6 -340.4 50.7 -0.7 -290.3\n1993 1,154.5 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1\n1994 1,258.7 1,461.9 -258.8 56.8 -1.1 -203.2\n1995 1,351.9 1,515.9 -226.4 60.4 2.0 -164.0\n1996 1,453.2 1,560.6 -174.0 66.4 0.2 -107.4\n1997 1,579.4 1,601.3 -103.2 81.3 * -21.9\n1998 1,722.0 1,652.7 -29.9 99.4 -0.2 69.3\n1999 1,827.6 1,702.0 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.6\n2000 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4 151.8 -2.0 236.2\n2001 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4 163.0 -2.3 128.2\n2002 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4 159.0 0.7 -157.8\n2003 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4 155.6 5.2 -377.6\n2004 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0 151.1 4.1 -412.7\n2005 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6 173.5 1.8 -318.3
Yeah, Bush has a lot of credibility in working toward balancing the budget. Not. And on "pass[ing] bills that are simply political statements", I guess he thinks we've forgotten about [link|http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html|Terri Schiavo]... I hope Bush's budget gets the reception it deserves. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #277,284
1/3/07 12:03:09 PM
|
He may be in Neverland
but there is a possibility of getting to balance in 5 years. Here's how.
First, get out of Iraq (in full force) in the next 12-18 months.
Notice, that even in spite of the huge spending in Iraq, the tax cuts and econ growth did indeed >increase< federal revenue. Deny it all you like...it simply keeps happening (JFK, Reagan, now GWB).
So, we only making up 318, not that different from the 290 that Clinton's presidency reduced in 5 years 93-98.
So while jerky-boy may not have credibility...the means to accomplish that objective are with Congress. But with Pelosi in charge....
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,285
1/3/07 12:05:26 PM
|
Re: He may be in Neverland
First, get out of Iraq (in full force) in the next 12-18 months. Stop right there. End of fantasy.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #277,290
1/3/07 1:47:33 PM
|
Clarification
I didn't mean a complete withdrawal...but now I re-read and thats what it appeared I was saying. What needs to happen is to have the troops drawn down significantly. That appears to be a direction that is entirely possible.
That is a multibillion dollar windfall for the government ... and it could even be delayed to the 24-30 month time frame and still have a significant impact on balancing the budget.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,291
1/3/07 1:58:15 PM
|
Do you read/see the same news as me?
[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6223923.stm|Bush to reveal Iraq troop boost], for example.
This is the diametric opposite of what you say needs to happen.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #277,311
1/3/07 5:57:39 PM
|
That is not at issue
Short term troop increases can still be met with reductions starting 18-24 months from now...and thats when it needs to happen.
Ideally, we will have some type of expense offset also.
Point is, its not impossible to balance the budget in 5 years. It may not be horribly likely...but it isn't impossible.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,314
1/3/07 6:03:16 PM
|
That's not what you said
First, get out of Iraq (in full force) in the next 12-18 months. That's not "reductions starting in 18-24 months", that's "the last marine steps on the last US plane leaving Baghdad in 18 months". And now that's changed from "out of Iraq in 18 months" to "start thinking about reductions in a year or so". Do you see why I'm finding your argument confusing and contradictory? Reality is that no such reduction is going to occur and, indeed, the wheels are in motion for tens of thousands of additional US troops to go to Iraq. Further, the experience of Iraq so far tells us that they'll end up staying there. Any budget-balancing hypothesis that relies on any reduction of materiel committed to Iraq is doomed from the outset.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #277,316
1/3/07 6:15:20 PM
|
Ok. Opinion noted.
I don't think we are going to be there with this level of troops in 2 to 3 years.
You do.
Yes, current news makes it appear bleak..but we have only 2 years left of Bush leadership...and I don't think he will be able to maintain this policy and ensure party reelection....SO...he is going to have to change policy within 2 years.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,318
1/3/07 6:38:58 PM
|
Right... It's a temporary increase
Like a temporary increase from the telephone company. It's only temporary; the rollback will come. It'll happen. Really. But first they need another temporary increase. Eventually the telco goes away. Eventually we'll leave Iraq. But Bush will do everything in his power to either put off the actual pullout until the next reprobate does it, or he thinks he can actually be able to claim a victory of some sort.
Only out of curiosity, you understand, what makes you think the Republican party can make Bush do anything at all? The dumbos have both houses. He can carry on as usual and blame everything on them. If he really fucks up, the republicritters can smear the next dumbo candidate to death with how bad they did when they had power.
There is absolutely no control over him any more. He is a vain, intellectually lazy underachiever who is only interested now in securing a legacy. There is no doubt in my mind that he can hunker down and wait for the next turkey to take the heat. In the mean time, he can continue to curry favor with the big guys that got him in in the first place. Wouldn't want to piss them off. He may need to get bailed out sometime in the future.
My tiny bits of copper alloy as usual...
|
Post #277,286
1/3/07 12:22:54 PM
|
It's not going to happen under a Bush proposal.
First, we're not going to be totally out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) in 18 months.
Second, we need to spend billions more than are budgeted to replace all the military hardware torn up in the wars.
Third, Social Security and Medicare (especially the prescription drug benefit) costs are going to continue to increase.
Fourth, discretionary spending is only a small fraction of the budget.
Fifth, we're probably going to be increasing the size of the Army and Marines. People are expensive. 10,000 = $15B/yr.
Sixth, there's little hope of interest rates being as low as they were during 2002-2004, so interest costs on the debt will continue to rise.
Seventh, there's little prospect (short of a global recession) that oil prices will drop substantially. This increases costs to the military, weakens the dollar, puts pressure on interest rates, etc.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. The only way, right now, to balance the budget is to cut spending and increase taxes above the level they are now. That means doing away with substantial portions of Bush's tax cuts. Unless you think another boom like the .com boom (or the housing boom, or the early 1980s boom coming off a deep recession) is going to happen sometime soon?
It's easy to see that this Bush statement and any Bush budget that tries to implement it are merely a play to the "conservative" pundits so that they can try to claim that any future improvements are the result of his policies, and any future difficulties are the result of not implementing his plan in toto. It's fantasy.
If the budget is balanced in the next 5 years, it will be in spite of Bush's proposals and policies.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #277,288
1/3/07 1:36:09 PM
|
Stats on that?
I've seen reports that the tax revenue did not increase, as you just said it did. Of course, I can't find those reports, nor can I remember where I saw it.
I was just curious where you got your information.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #277,289
1/3/07 1:44:55 PM
|
CBO data was in the post above
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,292
1/3/07 2:00:15 PM
|
Funny how it took 1 year under Reagan but 5 under Bush.
Compare the [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=277282|CBO revenue numbers] for Reagan (1981 - 1989) with Bush (2001 - 2005). The federal revenue only dropped 1 year for Reagan (1983), but was below the 2000 revenue level for every year under Bush until 2005.
Could it be that Reagan reversed himself on his tax cuts while Bush didn't? I think so.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #277,312
1/3/07 5:58:23 PM
|
Can you say "recession". I knew you could.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,317
1/3/07 6:22:03 PM
1/3/07 8:10:49 PM
|
You must have a different definition than me.
;-) [link|http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls|Bureau of Economic Analysis] (XLS file): Annual Percentage Change in GDP from previous period. 2000 Dollars. Year % Change\n1980\t-0.2\n1981\t2.5\n1982\t-1.9\n1983\t4.5\n1984\t7.2\n1985\t4.1\n1986\t3.5\n1987\t3.4\n1988\t4.1\n1989\t3.5\n1990\t1.9\n1991\t-0.2\n1992\t3.3\n1993\t2.7\n1994\t4.0\n1995\t2.5\n1996\t3.7\n1997\t4.5\n1998\t4.2\n1999\t4.5\n2000\t3.7\n2001\t0.8\n2002\t1.6\n2003\t2.5\n2004\t3.9\n2005\t3.2
The drop in Federal Revenue during Bush's term is overwhelmingly due to his tax cuts, not a recession. There wasn't a recession in 2001 - 2002 (at least not if you define recession as a drop in annual GDP growth). [edit:] The wrong XLS file was linked previously. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #277,320
1/3/07 6:55:56 PM
|
Definitions
3 consecutive quarters of neg growth=recession. Thats exactly what Bush was handed at when he took office. (I have the correct definition ;-)
Add to that the disaster that was the stock market and the self-destruction of the internet bubble. (my current employer is 60k employees smaller than when Bush took office).
There was no way to go but down for the fed coffers during Bush's first 2 years.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,324
1/3/07 8:36:27 PM
|
Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns)
Looking at the XLS file (at the [link|http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls|corrected link]), we see: Year GDP % Change (2000 dollars)\n\n1980q1\t 1.3\n1980q2\t-7.8\n1980q3\t-0.7\n1980q4\t 7.6\n1981q1\t 8.4\n1981q2\t-3.1\n1981q3\t 4.9\n1981q4\t-4.9\n1982q1\t-6.4\n1982q2\t 2.2\n1982q3\t-1.5\n1982q4\t 0.4\n1983q1\t 5.0\n1983q2\t 9.3\n1983q3\t 8.1\n1983q4\t 8.4\n1984q1\t 8.1\n1984q2\t 7.1\n1984q3\t 3.9\n1984q4\t 3.3\n1985q1\t 3.8\n1985q2\t 3.5\n1985q3\t 6.4\n1985q4\t 3.1\n1986q1\t 3.9\n1986q2\t 1.6\n1986q3\t 3.9\n1986q4\t 2.0\n1987q1\t 2.7\n1987q2\t 4.5\n1987q3\t 3.7\n1987q4\t 7.2\n1988q1\t 2.0\n1988q2\t 5.2\n1988q3\t 2.1\n1988q4\t 5.4\n1989q1\t 4.1\n1989q2\t 2.6\n1989q3\t 2.9\n1989q4\t 1.0\n1990q1\t 4.7\n1990q2\t 1.0\n1990q3\t 0.0\n1990q4\t-3.0\n1991q1\t-2.0\n1991q2\t 2.6\n1991q3\t 1.9\n1991q4\t 1.9\n1992q1\t 4.2\n1992q2\t 3.9\n1992q3\t 4.0\n1992q4\t 4.5\n1993q1\t 0.5\n1993q2\t 2.0\n1993q3\t 2.1\n1993q4\t 5.5\n1994q1\t 4.1\n1994q2\t 5.3\n1994q3\t 2.3\n1994q4\t 4.8\n1995q1\t 1.1\n1995q2\t 0.7\n1995q3\t 3.3\n1995q4\t 3.0\n1996q1\t 2.9\n1996q2\t 6.7\n1996q3\t 3.4\n1996q4\t 4.8\n1997q1\t 3.1\n1997q2\t 6.2\n1997q3\t 5.1\n1997q4\t 3.0\n1998q1\t 4.5\n1998q2\t 2.7\n1998q3\t 4.7\n1998q4\t 6.2\n1999q1\t 3.4\n1999q2\t 3.4\n1999q3\t 4.8\n1999q4\t 7.3\n2000q1\t 1.0\n2000q2\t 6.4\n2000q3\t-0.5\n2000q4\t 2.1\n2001q1\t-0.5\n2001q2\t 1.2\n2001q3\t-1.4\n2001q4\t 1.6\n2002q1\t 2.7\n2002q2\t 2.2\n2002q3\t 2.4\n2002q4\t 0.2\n2003q1\t 1.2\n2003q2\t 3.5\n2003q3\t 7.5\n2003q4\t 2.7\n2004q1\t 3.9\n2004q2\t 4.0\n2004q3\t 3.1\n2004q4\t 2.6\n2005q1\t 3.4\n2005q2\t 3.3\n2005q3\t 4.2\n2005q4\t 1.8\n2006q1\t 5.6\n2006q2\t 2.6\n2006q3\t 2.0
Based on the 3 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth standard, there hasn't been a recession since 1974q3 - 1975q1. You might want to pick a different definition as that one doesn't seem to be very useful. ;-) (The NBER uses [link|http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html|peaks and troughs].) But the issue isn't the definition of recession and whether Bush faced one or not. The best historical comparison we can make on the effect of Bush's tax cuts is to compare it to Reagan. Comparing the drops in GDP that Reagan faced (and the rise in Federal revenue he oversaw) and that faced by Bush (and the drop in Federal revenue he oversaw), it still seems, um, less than self-evident to me that Bush's tax cuts have had the claimed beneficial effect on revenue. Perhaps you could clear up my confusion by applying a metric to Bush's term and the same metric to Reagan's term and show that the rise in revenue under Reagan wasn't the direct result of his [link|http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp|tax increases]. I've about had my say on this. I'm sincerely interested in your counterpoint. I'll let you have the last word. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #277,340
1/3/07 10:11:51 PM
|
Re: Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns)
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession|http://en.wikipedia....y_2000s_recession]
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,310
1/3/07 5:34:54 PM
|
You're using the total?
I'm surprised you're not using the On-Budget deficit numbers.
|
Post #277,302
1/3/07 4:59:46 PM
|
More from the Washington Post.
The Washington Post now has a story on it. [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300235_pf.html|Here]: After delivering his statement with members of his Cabinet standing behind him, Bush walked away without taking any questions from reporters.
Later, in a White House news briefing, presidential spokesman Tony Snow was pressed to explain how Bush's budget-cutting pledge could be reconciled with the burgeoning costs of the war in Iraq, which is funded largely through emergency supplemental bills rather than the regular annual budget process. Those costs thus are currently not subject to overall spending limits and are excluded from deficit calculations. In a report last month, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that war funding be shifted from supplementals to the regular budget to provide greater transparency. IOW, the budget deficit is about $100B larger than trumpeted by the Bush Administration. Snow said Bush in his Jan. 23 State of the Union speech would "move toward making expenditures in Iraq and in the war on terror generally, including Afghanistan, as transparent as possible." The spokesman did not commit to complete elimination of supplementals for war funding and said he could not get into specifics on the administration's fiscal 2008 budget proposal, which is scheduled to be released Feb. 5.
Snow indicated, however, that Iraq war spending would be taken into account in the plan to balance the budget by 2012 -- three years after Bush leaves office.
[...]
Some economists also have charged that Bush has claimed unwarranted credit for his tax cuts, which they say have cost the Treasury more in lost revenue than has been gained from their economic stimulus effect.
According to Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist who joined the American Enterprise Institute, "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
Viard said in October there was "no evidence" that Bush's tax cuts come anywhere close to paying for themselves, a conclusion shared by economists at the Treasury Department and the nonpartisan CBO, Washington Post staff writer Lori Montgomery [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121.html|reported].
The Congressional Research Service has estimated that economic growth fueled by the tax cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of their total cost, which amounts to about $1.1 trillion since 2001. Emphasis added. What's 93% among friends. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #277,315
1/3/07 6:12:00 PM
|
Typing and laughing at same time
They can say without question that it wasn't the tax cuts that spurned the increase in revenue..but they mythically cannot explain why income tax receipts are up 20% and coporate profits are up (gee...a healthy economy driven by lower net tax rates would have >nothing< to do with that).
In addition...these "economists" that they are talking to must not have taken Intermediate Macro (or maybe they failed it...they do work for the government now) because they have no understanding of the complete impact that generates the Laffer curve. A principle impact of that is that lower tax rates (especially the temp kind installed by Bush) ENCOURAGE people to pay taxes now instead of deferring (when the rates go back up). It discourages tax avoidance...which is EXACTLY the thing that these "economists" can't seem to explain.
My tax dollars pay their salary. Now I'm depressed all over again.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,309
1/3/07 5:29:11 PM
|
Pure Politics....
look, Bush has NO interest in cutting the budget. (If so, they could've done it for the last 4 years). Bush DOES have an interest in blaming Democrats for the huge bills he's been racking up. So now, he makes a big stir about how Democrats can choose to get along or not....knowing full well that some Democrats are already calling to treat the Bush administration as they've been treated (Which means, they'll be locked in stalemate). When the bills come along, he'll just blame Democrats (which others are already doing). To give you an idea of how bad it is -- they're calling on Nancy Pelosi to pass her [link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/gop-minority/| "Minority Bill of Rights" ] of 2004. This is, of course, the same [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A680-2004Jun23.html|bill] that Dennis Hastert refused to respond to. In keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
|
Post #277,313
1/3/07 6:02:56 PM
|
Of course it is.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #277,322
1/3/07 7:47:05 PM
|
Exactly
Bush came out and asked for a bunch of stuff that would have been difficult to do when the Republican controlled Congress. And which Bush showed little or no interest in during the past 6 years.
This is just setting up a list of complaints for latter about how the Democrats are blocking progress and the good of the country.
Personally I think a better system of power sharing would be better for Congress. But the Republicans suddenly whining about it after refusing to give the Democrats even the least scraps for many years is downright embarrassing. Same goes for Bush's sudden talk of compromise and negotiation.
Jay
|
Post #277,323
1/3/07 7:59:07 PM
|
Payback
is a bitch.
40 years the Reps dealt with it. 10 years they've gotten it back. and their complaint is "their even worse that we were".
Yep. Thats Washington politics.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
