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 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.
New 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
     More proof that Bush is living in Neverland. - (Another Scott) - (24)
         He may be in Neverland - (bepatient) - (17)
             Re: He may be in Neverland - (pwhysall) - (6)
                 Clarification - (bepatient) - (5)
                     Do you read/see the same news as me? - (pwhysall) - (4)
                         That is not at issue - (bepatient) - (3)
                             That's not what you said - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                 Ok. Opinion noted. - (bepatient) - (1)
                                     Right... It's a temporary increase - (hnick)
             It's not going to happen under a Bush proposal. - (Another Scott)
             Stats on that? - (admin) - (7)
                 CBO data was in the post above -NT - (bepatient) - (6)
                     Funny how it took 1 year under Reagan but 5 under Bush. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                         Can you say "recession". I knew you could. -NT - (bepatient) - (4)
                             You must have a different definition than me. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                 Definitions - (bepatient) - (2)
                                     Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns) - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         Re: Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns) - (bepatient)
             You're using the total? - (Simon_Jester)
         More from the Washington Post. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Typing and laughing at same time - (bepatient)
         Pure Politics.... - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
             Of course it is. -NT - (bepatient)
             Exactly - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                 Payback - (bepatient)

If lies were cars, she'd be the Santa Monica Freeway at 5:30 p.m.
156 ms