Joe Scarborough: And We Thought Clinton Had No Self Control

[Sarge]

Yes Sarge, and you b!tched when military was cut to pay for Reagan's spending spree. You will b!tch again when military is cut to pay for the latest Bush gaffs. At what point do you realize that the military is paid by federal tax dollars, and they will be hit just as hard as everyone else when cuts come down in the future?

Hopefully we'll never again have a President with as lax-assed and irresponsible attitude towards the military and the intelligence apparatus as was clinton.

Then the cuts can come out of some other bull****

[chomerics]

Hopefully we'll never again have a President with as lax-assed and irresponsible attitude towards the military and the intelligence apparatus as was clinton.

How do you respond to the fact that intelligence was funded and increased under Clinton Sarge?

DHS (well the agencies that became DHS) were funded at $7.5billion in 92 and increased to $13.13 billion in 2000. That is almost an 80% increase in funding over 8 years. That is not counting his terrorism task force which was dismantled under Bush.

You can blame him for cutting the military, but at least know the facts about what he spent and who it was spent on. Intel was one area which received increased funding every year.

[Sarge]

How do you respond to the fact that intelligence was funded and increased under Clinton Sarge?

DHS (well the agencies that became DHS) were funded at $7.5billion in 92 and increased to $13.13 billion in 2000. That is almost an 80% increase in funding over 8 years. That is not counting his terrorism task force which was dismantled under Bush.

You can blame him for cutting the military, but at least know the facts about what he spent and who it was spent on. Intel was one area which received increased funding every year.

Great. He increased spending in intel to a degree

He also brought along a lot of liberal baggage in regard to how they could operate

Requiring all the CIA sources to be "scrubbed" to make sure they weren't criminals or had human rights violation comes to mind, among other things

[Destino]

I know everyone is aware of this even if they choose to ignore it.

Lower taxes = more tax revenue

Everyone that actually "knows" knows that the answer to this:

Lower taxes = more tax revenue (true/false)

is False.

In some situations that is true in others it is not. Thus the statement that lower taxes equates to higher revenue is simply not true. If taxes are so high that people aren't investing, businesses are closing, and the economy is tanking then lowering taxes could in the long run might produce higher revenue. It sure as hell isn't the rule - otherwise no one would ever raise taxes.

Taxes are raised to fund more spending, if lowering taxes brought in more money then people interested in increasing spending would lower taxes. They don't.

[BURGUNDYBLEEDER]

Everyone that actually "knows" knows that the answer to this:

Lower taxes = more tax revenue (true/false)

is False.

In some situations that is true in others it is not. Thus the statement that lower taxes equates to higher revenue is simply not true. If taxes are so high that people aren't investing, businesses are closing, and the economy is tanking then lowering taxes could in the long run might produce higher revenue. It sure as hell isn't the rule - otherwise no one would ever raise taxes.

Taxes are raised to fund more spending, if lowering taxes brought in more money then people interested in increasing spending would lower taxes. They don't.

Remember, the personal income tax isn't the only tax.

This is a lengthy link http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

[gbear]

Chom,

I keep waiting for the Laffer refutation. Of course I have been waiting since college without success. I used to post the actual receipts for IRS year to year, but Art stopped answering those post showing lower taxes do not in fact lead to higher amounts of money taken in over the long term. The previous increase during the 80's was shown to be mostly reduced oil prices leading to a huge economic boom that offsett many of the cuts with regard to government revenue. Often forgotten is that Reagan ended up raising taxes when the initial plan seemed untenable.

I was looking at the IRS page for tax collections over time, and I'm not sure the lower taxes = increased revenue arguement holds.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05db07co.xls

While total taxes collected went up from 1999 to 2005, I'd note it wasn't at the same rate as we have seen previously. Weren't there tax cuts in there? From most reports our economy has grown. If tax rates were constant, I would expect an increase in tax revenue. As it is, I not that on this chart it looks like we almost double our tax collections every decade. Are we on pace to do that this time with our tax cuts? By my quick calculations we have increased tax revenue by about 18-19 % from 1999 to 2005. With these tax cuts, we seem to be falling behind a bit on the expected revenue increases. That's not great given that we have been out of a recession for how long? Ah well, at least this time there is an increase in tax revenue to talk about. I hated 03 and 04 when we had decreases and everyone was still talking about the aptly phonetically spelled laffer curve.

Side issue I don't know how to deal with:

An absolute change being positive in the IRS tax collected should still be looked at in terms of buying power. Money is only as good as the services and products it can be used to purchase.

[Destino]

Remember, the personal income tax isn't the only tax.

This is a lengthy link http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

I know that personal tax isn't the only tax - just as I know that cutting taxes doesn't always increase revenue. What you are trying to argue is that the laffer curve is a economic rule, when it's very clearly not.

Let me ask you this since you are beleiver, and I'm not - at what tax rate does the increase in revenue become minor or even negative? What is the best rate that maximizes the increase in returns?

[BURGUNDYBLEEDER]

What if you are to the left of the apex on the Laffer Curve? What happens then?

Then you have a lower tax rate then if you are to the right of the apex and a government that is taking less of OUR money.

[codeorama]

I've been saying for a long time, that IMO, the best situation for us as a nation is having a Dem for president and a GOP controlled congress.

Either party being in control of both is a joke IMO.

[gbear]

I'd also point out that the article is written by laffer for a conservative organization at a time when we actually had a decrease in revenue after a few years of Republican tax cuts. I would also point out that the article ignoresany other facators in the economy that should have lead to increased revenues. I guess the truely young may forget the oil embargo of the early 80's, it's effects on the economy, and the effects of it being ended. Instead, all credit for a better economy goes to tax rates (despite the fact that some taxes were raised during Reagan). As I read this article, I'm a little skeptical about the premise that people correlate how hard they will work with how much the government will take of their money. To be honest, I can't imagine working 10% harder just because the government cut my taxes. I can't imagine my boss would let me slack off either if I used the excuse "well the government raised my taxes..."

I invest to maximise my dollars. I may invest diferently depending on taxes, but I still just pick the best option I have. The part of somehow doing more because I sudenly can make more is only true to a point. That part of the laffer curve has always seemed a falacy to me when talking about personal income taxes.

To be honest, I note that few externalities are introduced to this theory. Let me just say I'm with most of teh economists that seem to think we're on the wrong side of the laffer curve to reduce taxes and increase tax revenue. Don't take this as even minimally suggestive that I advocate raising taxes.

[Predicto]

The Laffer curve is an utter joke.

The only reason they keep trotting it out there is not because there is any validity to it, but because it provides "cover" for them do what they plan to do anyway. At least they can pretend that there is some economic theory behind it, rather than just admitting that they want to spend the money now and have their kids pay for it.

[Riggo-toni]

Why, oh why did the GOP have to choose another Bush to run for Prez? Didn't they learn anything from the dismal failures of the 1st one???

[Midnight Judges]

ROTH 401k's will prop up tax revenue in the short term at the expense of significantly more long-term revenue for the fed. Very nice for higher wage young people.

[Barney B]

I know everyone is aware of this even if they choose to ignore it.

Lower taxes = more tax revenue

The more I drink, the sobererer I get.

The Return Of Voodoo Economics

"..But to win over reasonable conservatives, I'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."

How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue.

...they should at least have listened to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office.

In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.

[Larry]

I find it hard to compare Bush and Clinton in terms of self control. Clinton was getting BJ's in the white house,

I'm remembering an article I saw about a year ago that said that when the Brittish soccer team played in the Netherlands (where marijuana is lagal), the normally notoriously violent Brittish Soccer Fans were reported to be rather mellow and easily controlled. The aticle said that Italy, host of the next game, was considering announcing that their drug laws would not be enforced in the area around the stadium on game day.

Not that I'm saying there might be a parallel here, or anything.

[Larry]

Sarge, please show me that military spending was cut by 50%. You continue to profuse this notion, and you AGAIN are 100% wrong. . .

Here is military spending under Clinton. . .

1992 286,578

1993 278,512

1994 268,579

1995 259,490

1996 253,201

1997 258,265

1998 256,057

1999 261,302

2000 281,161

Where is the 50% decrease Sarge? The LARGEST decrease was. . . drumroll please. . . a total of 11% from 1992-1996.

But chom, look at the precentage of those cuts:

 
Year Spending  %Cut
1992  286,578
1993  278,512  2.81
1994  268,579  6.28
1995  259,490  9.45
1996  253,201 11.65
1997  258,265  9.88
1998  256,057 10.65
1999  261,302  8.82
2000  281,161  1.89
      Total: 61.43

So, see? If you spend 5% less than the high-water mark, and then you hold that 5% cut for 10 years, then it's a 50% cut.

Right?

[Larry]

Problem is, if you vote the republicans out the democrats will spend even more!

Yeah, but it won't matter because Democrats cause mushroom clouds, too.

Right?

[Larry]

Great. He increased spending in intel to a degree

Today, class, we present another lesson in "SargeSpeak".

"2% cut in military spending" ==> "50% cut"

"80% increase in counter-terror intell spending" ==> "increased to a degree"

Pay attention, and maybe someday you, too, can be reality challenged.

[SeattleSkinsFan]

Based on what? Under Clinton spending was curtailed

Clinton's spending was curtailed by a Republican congress. You can't accuse others of being intellectually dishonest if you're going to do it yourself.

[Larry]

Clinton's spending was curtailed by a Republican congress. You can't accuse others of being intellectually dishonest if you're going to do it yourself.

1) He's already pointed out: The defecit went down Clinton's first two years, under a Democrat Congress.

2) "How much military spending went down" is a fact. Stating that it went down 50% is either true, or it isn't. "Who gets credit for it" is an opinion. It can be debated, but frankly, chom's opinion is worth about as much as yours.

(Mine, of course, counts. )

3) What's being discussed here isn't whether D's are better then R's, it's whether a split, arguing, gridlocked is better, fiscally, than a well-oiled (reference to the oil biddness strictly coincidental) money laundering operation. In short, when he's comparing Clinton to Bush, he's comparing Clinton with a Congress that hates him.

[Sarge]

Today, class, we present another lesson in "SargeSpeak".

"2% cut in military spending" ==> "50% cut"

"80% increase in counter-terror intell spending" ==> "increased to a degree"

Pay attention, and maybe someday you, too, can be reality challenged.

Adding is fundamental

We'll forego to cut in 1992, because that was the Bush I budget. Add the rest, it's still a total of 58% budget cut over the clinton years

[Burgold]

On a lighter note: This article is just another sign of the liberal media. Hell, we even have the editors telling the writers what topic to write about and the exact spin they want on it.

"When The Washington Monthly reached me at my office recently, a voice on the other side of the line meekly asked if I would ever consider writing an article supporting the radical proposition that Republicans should get their brains beaten in this fall."

Can you believe that such a liberal mag as the Washington Monthly would tell the writer exactly what his conclusions should be just to push their pro demoncrat agenda!

[Larry]

Adding is fundamental

We'll forego to cut in 1992, because that was the Bush I budget. Add the rest, it's still a total of 58% budget cut over the clinton years

The problem is, Sarge, that adding (in this case) is completely meaningless.

If in 2000, I make $100 at work, and in '01 I make $95, and in '02 I make $95, and in '10 I'm still making $95, then my pay has not been "cut in half". It's been reduced 5%.

If you want to see how much something has been cut this year, you compare spending this year vs. spending last year. If you want to compare how much spending has changed over 10 years, you compare spending now, vs. spending then. You don't go through spending every single intervening year, compare every single year vs. the high water mark, and add up all of the differences.

(I thought the post I made on that subject was so obviously stupid that I didn't need to put [sarcasm] tags on it. I didn't expect people to actually try to claim that it was real.)

In fact, I'll even point out the three charts of "proof" you posted: Those three charts have exactly one line that actually applies to the subject. It's the last line of the last chart. It says "Budget" (in constant dollars), and it shows an 18% cut.

(Now, if you'd like to discuss the other charts' references to cuts in units and personnell, I'll be happy to address those issues as well, because I'll agree that budgets don't fight wars, people do. But I'll also tell you that you're not going to like those facts, either, because it doesn't fit the "blame Clinton" mission. But I don't have the time right now.)

[Sarge]

The problem is, Sarge, that adding (in this case) is completely meaningless.

If in 2000, I make $100 at work, and in '01 I make $95, and in '02 I make $95, and in '10 I'm still making $95, then my pay has not been "cut in half". It's been reduced 5%.

If you want to see how much something has been cut this year, you compare spending this year vs. spending last year. If you want to compare how much spending has changed over 10 years, you compare spending now, vs. spending then. You don't go through spending every single intervening year, compare every single year vs. the high water mark, and add up all of the differences.

(I thought the post I made on that subject was so obviously stupid that I didn't need to put [sarcasm] tags on it. I didn't expect people to actually try to claim that it was real.)

In fact, I'll even point out the three charts of "proof" you posted: Those three charts have exactly one line that actually applies to the subject. It's the last line of the last chart. It says "Budget" (in constant dollars), and it shows an 18% cut.

(Now, if you'd like to discuss the other charts' references to cuts in units and personnell, I'll be happy to address those issues as well, because I'll agree that budgets don't fight wars, people do. But I'll also tell you that you're not going to like those facts, either, because it doesn't fit the "blame Clinton" mission. But I don't have the time right now.)

Fire away Riddley. It always amuses me when people that have never been in the military and that didn't have to live through the debilitating effects of klintons budget cuts try to make the case the klinton "didn't really cut the budget THAAAAT much"

Before you start though, remember that I got Chom of all people to admit, right in this forum, that the budget had been cut too much in the 90's

[Burgold]

Didn't the major downsizing of the military really begin under Bush I though? I thought I remember Bush I being the first proponent of the leaner, meaner military or a new military model for the post-Cold War world? Not to mention, hasn't our current President closed an enormous number of bases. I remember the base number closing list being abnormally large, especially during a period of war. I know I was very surprised with the closing of Walter Reed here locally. Closing one of the main military and very historic military hospitals now with an average of 75 received daily at LARMC seemed reallly surprising to me.