(8PM)Tonight's Politico/MSNBC Republican Debate at Reagan Library

[Larry]

And I can't believe that mossomo is trying to claim that a giant speculative bubble based on borrowing against rapidly inflating real estate prices was actually a wonderful economic boom created by the brilliant tax policies of George W Bush.

I haven't heard that one since 2008 (when that bubble popped and took all of us down with it).

In his defense, I don't think he's saying everything was perfect.

He's trying to claim that the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit at all.

And he's attempting to support that assertion by pointing out that a mere three years after the tax cuts were passed, revenues stopped going down.

Now, the tax cuts were passed in the early months of his administration, which would make them late in FY2001 or early 02. But as I recall, they were made retroactive to the entire tax year 2001, meaning that they (retroactively) were in effect for like 9 months of FY01.

So our chronology is: (in fiscal years):

2001: Tax cuts go into effect.

2001: Revenues drop 8%

2002: Revenues drop another 14%

2003: Revenues drop another 10%.

2004: Revenues increase by 5%

2011: ABQ loudly announces that the tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with three straight years of dropping revenues, and "supports" this claim, by loudly claiming that the fact that revenues didn't keep going down forever clearly was due to the tax cuts.

----------

Now, lest people attempt to claim that I'm saying something that I'm not, . . . No, I'm not claiming that those revenue drops are entirely due to the tax cuts. Or even mostly due to them. Those revenue drops were due to the economy going downhill. And me, I put most of the blame for the economic drop on 9/11.

I'm simply asserting that it's completely laughable to claim that the tax cuts have zero responsibility for that drop.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Granted, I think my memory's fading, but I think that's got to be the biggest whopper I've ever seen you tell in here.

Congress did not declare War. That's why it is considered a Campaign. Because of this, the most effective, most immediate way to make funds immediately available to the troops was to commit emergency funds in a series of two supplemental appropriations. The office of management and budget and the DOD both agreed that it was not lawful to have these funds into regular appropriations, IE, the normal defense budget. In this way the funding used to fight the War was placed into the DERF and in this way, the appropriations were doled out to the DOD. Now, if you want to say that this method is less then ideal, well, I would not argue that point. I too believe that it was not ideal for several reasons but the only way to circumvent this is to declare War and obligate directly through a Congressional Act. This was not done.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why would any of us feel such disdain for a congressman that has the values he has? Seriously?

I don't feel like I need to respect someone's values when those values are wrong.

I lose faith in humanity for the ways this man is treated.

Also, stop acting like a goddamn Antebellum woman. Lose faith in humanity? Grow a ****ing sack.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Congress did not declare War. That's why it is considered a Campaign. Because of this, the most effective, most immediate way to make funds immediately available to the troops was to commit emergency funds in a series of two supplemental appropriations. The office of management and budget and the DOD both agreed that it was not lawful to have these funds into regular appropriations, IE, the normal defense budget. In this way the funding used to fight the War was placed into the DERF and in this way, the appropriations were doled out to the DOD. Now, if you want to say that this method is less then ideal, well, I would not argue that point. I too believe that it was not ideal for several reasons but the only way to circumvent this is to declare War and obligate directly through a Congressional Act. This was not done.

Wow. Just WOW. You put a lot of thought into this paragraph, but it doesn't remotely reflect reality.

Do you know when the last time Congress declared war was?

Do you know when the last time Congress authorized military action under the War Powers Act was?

Do you know what HJ Res 114 was, and who passed it?

[NoCalMike]

What do Bush's economic numbers look like without the aid of Iraq War...?

[twa]

What do Bush's economic numbers look like without the aid of Iraq War...?

What are our unemployment numbers gonna look like when we 'bring the boys home' and downsize military spending?

You do have a good question though.....any good studies done?

I've heard it hurt and helped,just like with the stimulus

add

are the current military efforts similar or different as far as cost/benefit?

[@DCGoldPants]

Congress did not declare War. That's why it is considered a Campaign. Because of this, the most effective, most immediate way to make funds immediately available to the troops was to commit emergency funds in a series of two supplemental appropriations. The office of management and budget and the DOD both agreed that it was not lawful to have these funds into regular appropriations, IE, the normal defense budget. In this way the funding used to fight the War was placed into the DERF and in this way, the appropriations were doled out to the DOD. Now, if you want to say that this method is less then ideal, well, I would not argue that point. I too believe that it was not ideal for several reasons but the only way to circumvent this is to declare War and obligate directly through a Congressional Act. This was not done.

I finally got a chance to read what you've replied with, but Larry and Predicto pretty much debunked many of the factual inaccuracies in your posts. Instead of going in circles I'm going to just say that we're not going to agree here. Plus it doesn't really matter since spending is spending and it does have an impact on our massive debt that was created during the last admin......which oddly very few who are complaining now on domestic spending were complaining them. Bottom line is that to kill debt we need to cut spending AND raise taxes on those who were getting massive cuts during the past decade and didn't use those cuts to hire American workers. They shouldn't get a mulligan because this time they promise to do it.

Hire American workers and then you get your cuts. That's how it should work. Fire or let go of those workers and you should lose those cuts. Simple as that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wow. Just WOW. You put a lot of thought into this paragraph, but it doesn't remotely reflect reality.

Do you know when the last time Congress declared war was?

Do you know when the last time Congress authorized military action under the War Powers Act was?

Do you know what HJ Res 114 was, and who passed it?

World War II. I believe the U.S. has only declared War 5 times. Once in WWII, once in WWI, Spanish American, Mexican American and 1812. What's your point?

I am not certain about the last time but I believe it was in Libya. What's your point?

HJ Res 114, if I am not mistaken was Congressional Resolution authorizing Military Force against Iraq. What is your point?

---------- Post added September-10th-2011 at 11:58 AM ----------

I finally got a chance to read what you've replied with, but Larry and Predicto pretty much debunked many of the factual inaccuracies in your posts. Instead of going in circles I'm going to just say that we're not going to agree here. Plus it doesn't really matter since spending is spending and it does have an impact on our massive debt that was created during the last admin......which oddly very few who are complaining now on domestic spending were complaining them. Bottom line is that to kill debt we need to cut spending AND raise taxes on those who were getting massive cuts during the past decade and didn't use those cuts to hire American workers. They shouldn't get a mulligan because this time they promise to do it.

Hire American workers and then you get your cuts. That's how it should work. Fire or let go of those workers and you should lose those cuts. Simple as that.

Really, how did Larry and Predicto debunk it?

---------- Post added September-10th-2011 at 12:04 PM ----------

This administration has not tried creating jobs. They have bailed out banks and corporations in another vain attempt at trickle down economics. They hoped to prop up the corporations to allow them to maintain operations and jobs, and reduce the fall of the economy. This administration has taken a purely centrist (business-friendly) attitude towards jobs. We need a real jobs program because our previous attempts at trickle down job creation (breaks for business, reducing taxes on "job creators") has proven wholly ineffective. Again, I don't guarantee that a jobs bill will help, but these past few decades have proven what doesn't appear to work.

I agree. They have little to nothing in the creation of jobs. However, they have promised to create jobs since they were elected. Why trust this administration to spend more money? They promised to put money towards shovel ready projects the last go round and that money never went to those kinds of efforts. They have had an opportunity to do this. Why should America buy into this again?

[PeterMP]

This administration has not tried creating jobs. They have bailed out banks and corporations in another vain attempt at trickle down economics. They hoped to prop up the corporations to allow them to maintain operations and jobs, and reduce the fall of the economy. This administration has taken a purely centrist (business-friendly) attitude towards jobs. We need a real jobs program because our previous attempts at trickle down job creation (breaks for business, reducing taxes on "job creators") has proven wholly ineffective. Again, I don't guarantee that a jobs bill will help, but these past few decades have proven what doesn't appear to work.

I actually want to point out that this isn't really true. TARP (the bank bailout) was done under Bush. Now, Obama did do cash-for-clunkers, which was essentially a bailout of the US auto industry, w/o having to worry about Japan screaming about protectionism.

But Obama did pass a job stimulus act based on government funding (though it did also include tax cuts). There where issues w/ how "shovel ready" the jobs were:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/obama-lesson-shovel-ready-not-so-ready/

"“Did every project start as quickly as you would have hoped? No,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. But, he added, “The president has no second thoughts about that.”"

"On Dec. 8, 2009, the United States Conference of Mayors presented Mr. Obama with a list of 11,391 infrastructure projects that they said were “ready to go” in a report by the same name."

"“When the president says there’s no such thing as ‘shovel ready,’ he’s right. We’re all locked into low responsible bidding,” Mr. Rendell said. “When we said ‘shovel ready’ we meant ‘shovel ready’ in the way we do things. I don’t think we meant to be deceptive.”

But Mr. Rendell quickly added: “If you are talking about stimulating the economy, ‘shovel ready’ doesn’t mean get the money on Monday and start on Tuesday. But tell me something where people get hired to do work at well-paying jobs faster?”"

Now, I can tell you that part of this bill was funding from the NIH, and I know more than one young person that graduated from college, got a job in an academic lab based on ARRA funding (http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/) that has since transitioned to a job in industry (as the ARRA grants were only for 2 years and are or have expired depending exactly when your award).

Though, I will also say, I don't think this sort of spending is actually a good idea. I'd rather see them actually take their time and come up w/big projects that industry isn't likely to do, but will have real long term beneficial affects on the economy. More TVA like projects.

[Jumbo]

As usual, Peter, the truth lies elsewhere than the knee-jerk party-reflex reactions to superficial reductionist presentations geared to neanderthal level. Not that it matters much (pessimist in me). But I'm still glad some people take the time to spotlight that reality. Obviously, there's always worthy debate to be had, and a need for it, in all such policy matters---it's just another reminder you can't have an intelligent and productively critical examination of complex matters when most of the participants are using little of the required types of intelligence and instead are deploying...well....see my tired old sig. Keep up your style, Peter. Along with a small handful of others doing similar work here, and independent of the actual positions you may take on various matters, it's very much needed.

[PeterMP]

As usual, Peter, the truth lies elsewhere than the knee-jerk party-reflex reactions to superficial reductionist presentations geared to neanderthal level. Not that it matters much (pessimist in me). But I'm still glad some people take the time to spotlight that reality. Obviously, there's always worthy debate to be had, and a need for it, in all such policy matters---it's just another reminder you can't have an intelligent and productively critical examination of complex matters when most of the participants are using little of the required types of intelligence and instead are deploying...well....see my tired old sig. Keep up your style, Peter. Along with a small handful of others doing similar work here, and independent of the actual positions you may take on various matters, it's very much needed.

Thanks.

[Wrong Direction]

In his defense, I don't think he's saying everything was perfect.

He's trying to claim that the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit at all.

And he's attempting to support that assertion by pointing out that a mere three years after the tax cuts were passed, revenues stopped going down.

Now, the tax cuts were passed in the early months of his administration, which would make them late in FY2001 or early 02. But as I recall, they were made retroactive to the entire tax year 2001, meaning that they (retroactively) were in effect for like 9 months of FY01.

So our chronology is: (in fiscal years):

2001: Tax cuts go into effect.

2001: Revenues drop 8%

2002: Revenues drop another 14%

2003: Revenues drop another 10%.

2004: Revenues increase by 5%

2011: ABQ loudly announces that the tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with three straight years of dropping revenues, and "supports" this claim, by loudly claiming that the fact that revenues didn't keep going down forever clearly was due to the tax cuts.

----------

Now, lest people attempt to claim that I'm saying something that I'm not, . . . No, I'm not claiming that those revenue drops are entirely due to the tax cuts. Or even mostly due to them. Those revenue drops were due to the economy going downhill. And me, I put most of the blame for the economic drop on 9/11.

I'm simply asserting that it's completely laughable to claim that the tax cuts have zero responsibility for that drop.

I'm sort of brain-dead tired right now, but it's worth pointing out a few things to help inform the graph.

1. In 2001, Bush inherited a recession, cut taxes and 9/11 happened.

2. In 2002, Bush had the residuals of 9/11 and another tax cut.

3. In 2003, Bush had his last major tax cut.

There's much more to the story than a direct correlation between tax cuts and revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

[Madison Redskin]

As usual, Peter, the truth lies elsewhere than the knee-jerk party-reflex reactions to superficial reductionist presentations geared to neanderthal level. Not that it matters much (pessimist in me). But I'm still glad some people take the time to spotlight that reality. Obviously, there's always worthy debate to be had, and a need for it, in all such policy matters---it's just another reminder you can't have an intelligent and productively critical examination of complex matters when most of the participants are using little of the required types of intelligence and instead are deploying...well....see my tired old sig. Keep up your style, Peter. Along with a small handful of others doing similar work here, and independent of the actual positions you may take on various matters, it's very much needed.

Your post made me think of this clip. It's one that all of us on ES (particularly those in the Tailgate), and those in Washington, would be wise to watch and think about.

tU9HRF_tKnw

[Larry]

I'm sort of brain-dead tired right now, but it's worth pointing out a few things to help inform the graph.

1. In 2001, Bush inherited a recession, cut taxes and 9/11 happened. And revenues went down.

2. In 2002, Bush had the residuals of 9/11 and another tax cut. And revenues went down.

3. In 2003, Bush had his last major tax cut. And revenues went down.

There's much more to the story than a direct correlation between tax cuts and revenue.

And I said that.