Well first off, the difference between a 45% increase in the debt and a 38% increase in the debt ain't chicken feed. In fact, if Bush's next 2 years match his previous six, his total contribution will be ~(33/6)*8 or about 44% (plus a smidge for compounding). This would be basically identical to Clinton's 45%. Now admittedly under Clinton the trend was downward - in fact the budget was nearly balanced at the end (mostly thanks to the massive tax receipts from the bubble-induced capital gains). Significantly, Bush's deficits (as those NYTimes articles showed) are also dropping steeply, and those drops are also due to supply-side gains (ie more revenue due to economic activity, not cuts in spending). Clearly Bush will not get close to a balanced budget in 2 years, and in fact the annual deficit will most likely exceed that of Clinton as he left office. We could talk about the reasons for that, like 9/11 (terrorist's fault), Iraq (Bush's fault), Katrina (nature's fault), stock market bubble burst (greed's fault), or we could be intellectually lazy and say it's all Bush's "taxcuts for the rich" that caused it.
As regards "Bush routinely playing games with his deficit projections", those numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office, not from Bush.
accompanied by a pretty drastic cut in assistance spending
Got a reference for this? Seems to me things like the new drug program constitutes a significant increase in assistance spending. Did the aggregate really go down? Or did it just shift around, but on the aggregate go up?
I think that you must concede that not every tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich.
Sorry, I neglected to address this question. On the surface your argument is true - obviously it IS possible to only provide a tax cut to the "lower brackets". Of course we must both agree to not call an "earned income credit" or other form of largesse from the government to people who don't pay any taxes a tax cut. But once we have agreed to that groundrule, I think you are still missing a key aspect of my argument. While it's possible to give a tax cut to the lower brackets, that cut would be so small in absolute dollars with respect to the total federal revenues as to be totally ineffectual. In my mind the purpose of the tax cut would be either a) to shrink government and/or b) to stimulate the economy. Since the lower income echelons pay a small *absolute* number of tax dollars, giving them a cut accomplishes neither. So, when I keep saying "a taxcut is by definition for the rich", I should probably be qualifying that by saying that "any taxcut that can accomplish its goals must by definition be a cut for the rich". Otherwise it is merely a nice gesture that has no chance of actually doing anything substantive (if you accept the stated purpose of the cuts as I described above).
I appreciate your civil response. It is the exception rather than the rule in these parts. Yes, we can agree completely. Invariably, one side or the other of a debate will use percentages to bolster their argument. As an aside, it is my experience that most people don't think in percentages (which is why things like stock splits have an affect on the stock price), but I find them to be a very useful normalizer. Anyhow, recall that one of my central points is that the lion's share of the taxes are paid by the "rich" (insert your own favorite definition of what that means). This is not debatable, it is fact. So, in order to have any kind of meaningful tax cut (i.e. one that has substantive impact on the federal budget) it follows that one MUST cut taxes to the rich, since that is where most of the money is coming from. So, in the end, while technically it is accurate to refer to them as "taxcuts for the rich", there is really simply no other way to do an *effective* taxcut. In reality, Bush's cuts are called "for the rich" purely to divide and polarize (accusations that are customarily hurled at the conservatives), and it bothers me because it doesn't advance discussion, it (as you correctly point out, and as this thread proves), incites arguments. On that I assume we can agree?
Clinton - national debt increased from ~$4.2T to ~$5.8B, or about 38%
Bush II - Increased from ~$6T to ~$8T, or about 33% with TWO YEARS LEFT IN HIS TERM
On Bush II we both have the same numbers - 33%. But you conveniently omit Clinton's first year in computing his "contributions". The debt was $4T, not $4.2T when Clinton took over. So Clinton's number is (5.8-4.0)/4.0, or 45%.
As far as projections to Bush's 8 year number, those are projections. In fact, as the economy gains steam we are seeing frequent down-scoping of the projected deficits for the next two years, so we'll just have to see what the number ends up as, won't we?
But feel free to get on your pulpit and start yammering about how these tax cuts are practically paying for themselves.
Please try to put your hate aside and re-read *my* posts. All I said was "taxcuts for the rich" is a disingenuous (and purposely inflammatory) way to describe a tax cut, since the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, by definition a tax cut will benefit them. Said differently, the only way you can have a taxcut that will make any difference in the federal revenues is to cut taxes for the rich... they are the ones paying them.
What about the massive cut in capital gains and dividends conicidentally followed by a big increase in corporate dividend payments- who did that benifit? All those working class families with big portfolios?!?
Well over 50% of Americans have 401Ks (the number is actually 67% per the source below), which means that they all benefited from those dividend tax cuts. Do you consider everyone except the bottom 33% rich?
There was in fact a surplus at the end of Clinton's second term. it was due to good policies put through by President Clinton working in conjunction with a Republican-led Congress to hold the line on spending. But the biggest component of the surplus was the supply-side up-tick in federal revenues driven in large part by the huge capital gains taxes paid during the bubble in the stock market. In fact an interesting, but not often discussed aspect of the current deficits is that many businesses and individuals are still recovering from the bubble burst; they are still claiming investment losses incurred in 2000, 2001 against today's income and stock market gains. This is of course due to the $3000 limit on investment losses (over and above any gains in that tax year) one can declare in any given tax year.
I explicitly said I was referring to the federal taxes, since those are the ones Bush is responsible for (that was the discussion after all). And no, you are wrong, it is not a tax cut to give people who don't pay any taxes a handout. This is really very simple: you can't cut someone's taxes if they don't pay any taxes. And that's all I was saying. Giving them a handout (paid for by other taxpayers) does NOT constitute a taxcut for that poor person. If I never went to the food store, my grocery bill would be $0. If I then went to the grocery store and they gave me $5, that would not be a cut in my grocery bill. It would be a gift, or a handout, or charity, depending on the giver's intentions. Please don't follow the usual "progressive" technique of redefining the language to suit your own purposes. WE all know what the meaning of the word is is.
Now why did I wade into this firestorm one might ask? It drives me crazy when people say, reflexively, Bush's "taxcuts-for-the-rich" like it's some sort of special class of tax cuts; like it's possible to give serious tax cuts (i.e. tax cuts that will substantively reduce the federal intake, leaving money in the private sector where it can do some good) to the "working poor", even though they hardly pay any taxes to begin with. This is especially rankling when one also realizes that the child tax credits were a huge taxcut for the "working poor", virtually eliminating all federal taxes for many at the lower income levels (it was a tax credit so if you paid no taxes, you got no tax credit). So, percentage-wise, actually the poor were the bigger beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. Of course on an absolute basis the rich got the majority of the cut; there is simply no other way to do it and still have a tax cut. So, to call a taxcut "for the rich" is redundant, obvious, and therefore not informative. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. If you have a tax cut, BY DEFINITION, the rich benefit. Have I said it enough times for it to sink in?
Intelligent people can weigh evidence and come to a likely conclusion. In this case the existing evidence is overwhelming.
... and if Iraq stabilizes and becomes a democracy and that democracy spreads throughout the rest of the Arab world, and terrorism becomes much less of a force in the world, is it still a failure? There is no denying that terrorism has been steadily getting worse for the past 4 decades, during which time appeasement has basically been the policy. So I believe it is possible that this war in Iraq *could* still pay off (though admittedly it's not looking likely). And I submit that would be fairly highly regarded in years to come should it play out as I described above. Then Bush would and should receive quite a bit of credit from "intelligent people" for having the courage to prosecute a very unpopular war. Sadly, I cannot predict what will happen in the future as clearly as you seem able. That is why I believe we need to look back on how this all plays out before casting judgement.
Duh, I have no idea if these poker cards are good until the hand is done."
Nice analogy that perfectly demonstrates my point. You see, I might have a full house and be feeling pretty good about myself - even willing to declare that I have the best hand in the game. But I really don't know how good my hand is until everyone shows theirs. Conversely, I might have a pair of deuces and be tempted to fold. Lo and behold, it could prove to be the winning hand once all the other hands are shown.
That is an interesting chart. I see that during Clinton's years, the debt went up about 50% ($4T to $6T). During Bush's years (so far) it has gone up about 33% ($6T yo $8T). Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
The fact that the deficit as a percent of GDP is the same as it was during the Clinton years strikes me as a pretty good argument actually. I was refuting the claim that Bush is spending the US into the poorhouse. By demonstrating that the deficit is no worse than it was during the mid 90s I think I rather handily disproved the claim.
Oh, this is "rich". OK, let's address this tired liberal mantra. First of all, the 2005 tax cuts INCREASED the percentage of tax revenues paid by the top 1%, top 5%, top 20% and top 50% of the taxpayers. It REDUCED the percentage paid by the bottom 50%. And, in terms of percentage cuts, it most favored the lower rung taxpayers because the increased child tax credits (what's a measly $1000 to a millionaire?) disproportionately benefited the "poor". Second of all, the top 50% of taxpayers pay over 94% of ALL TAXES. So, here's a little riddle for you.... is it possible to give a tax cut to PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES? You can't give a tax cut to the poor in this country because they don't pay taxes (well, not federal taxes anyhow - the states and towns still get 'em). By definition, then, all tax cuts are "for the rich", since they pay almost all the taxes.
I consider ludicrous your blind acceptance of the most intriguing series of coincidences that let those terrorist bring down the towers according to the official investigation.
Unlike you (apparently), I am not an expert in building structures, material melting points, etc. I have watched the video trumping that ridiculous conspiracy "theory". It is very convincing. But then so was Erich Von Daeniken's "Chariots of the Gods" back in the 70s. Every generation seems to have its crazy theories, so I will forgive you yours. By the way, maybe you can answer me this... how can such an unbelievably elaborate "plan" be kept secret when literally thousands of people would have to be in on it? Heck, Watergate was only known by a small handful of people and word got out very quickly. It is simply not possible to keep a secret of this magnitude. Somebody would have come forward, or somebody would have uncovered real proof, not just hairbrained "theories" backed by pseudo-science. The fact that no proof has emerged is a far more difficult thing to explain than the "amazing coincidence" of the buildings' collapse.
Who's to say the first one was a terrorist attack and not an attack planned out by the current administration?
As soon as you write this, 75% of the readers (and 100% of the rational readers) stop reading. I only read on because I was looking forward to you further embarrassing yourself with ludicrous statements. You should have saved this silly statement for last.
Speaking of silly statements, let's continue to examine your undeniably false, post:
NASA's budget has gone up during Bush's 6 years. It went down during the Clinton years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget And the vast majority of NASA's budget has been for the shuttle, which is used mostly to build the space station, not military missions (sorry - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts)
debateable on whether they've backed down, or are playing their cards
Yeah, it's a coincidence it happened weeks after we caught Sadam (after Libya was a "rogue" nation for the better part of 2 decades)
The economy started to rebound, and the market began to jump, shortly after the tax cuts and the changes to the tax code reducing the rate at which dividends would be taxed.
The US national debt as a percentage of GDP (projected by the OMB in the 2007 budget) will rise to reach the level it peaked at near the end of Clinton's first term (about 70%) http://zfacts.com/p/318.html While high by historical comparison, the nation is waging a very expensive war, and for wartime it's actually somewhat low (it went to 120% during WWII). Certainly the trade imbalance is worrisome, but that is hardly Bush's fault. That is more, as you correctly observe, a reflection of our collective hunger fo cheap imports. And yes, I agree, it will catch up with us before too long.
Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years. And the economy is chugging along nicely. The Dow hit another a series of all time highs last week. Unemployment is very low. Obesity is a big problem, so we aren't starving by any means;-) Libya (largely due to what happened to Iraq) has backed down and become more reasonable, making amends for past transgressions. Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists. NASA put two rovers on Mars and they have vastly outperformed their original mission. Much progress has been made on the International Space Station. The US led the relief effort after the tsunami. And in 2 years there will be (yet another) orderly transition of power to the next president.
The list of good things that have occurred during Bush's 2 terms is fairly long (as, sadly, is the list of bad things). Now most here will say that Bush had nothing to do with those successes, but then they blame him for everything bad. In my view you can't have it both ways. Anyhow, in the end history will judge this presidency. It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it.
Besides the fact that Bluetooth is horribly slow, it's much easier just to plug the thing in and transfer stuff to it, then leave it plugged in to charge.
These are implementation shortfalls. And Bluetooth is woefully inadequate for this sort of thing - you really want WIFI.
BTW, I am not an iPod owner -- can you listen to your iPod while it's downloading music? If not, why not? In my mind, downloading should be a background activity - kick it off and then some time later it will be done. Think bittorrent. With wireless, for example, I *could* simply kick off a huge download (like my entire music collection), and eventually it would finish... without having to leave it in the cradle, and without depriving myself of being able to listen to it. It seems everyone is stuck, tied to how things work today, unable to imagine the many new capabilities wireless will enable (see my original post for some examples).
Not as long as you've still got to plug it in anyway to recharge, it doesn't.
By that argument cell phones are not useful because you have to plug them in to recharge them. When I retire each evening I put my cellphone on a charger. Then all day long I use it wirelessly. Why does everyone insist on tying these 2 activities (charging with downloading) together? Sure, if the only way I can put music into my device is from my PC, then having a cradle that also charges is convenient. But that is not the only use model that makes sense. And if you introduce wireless communications, I submit the old use model of charging while downloading will become a thing of the past and people will quickly gravitate to the cell phone use model.
... forcing everyone to listen to the same, bland content. With wireless, your device could "tell" the mall your music tastes and a customized station could be streamed to you... heck, that station could even include ads for stores in the mall that would appeal to you based on demographics.
Assuming one replaces all their equipment...
No, the party host would have a wireless-capable receiver. Then each guest that happened to have a (compatible - i.e. Apple "WiPod") wireless media player could make their music available to that receiver. You could even imagine this turning into some sort of contest/game where people with wireless devices could "vote" when they heard a song they liked... the system keeps track of whose music collection got the most votes, perhaps even adapting the stream based on those votes (playing more of the stuff people like). I know this all sounds kind of "out there", but, really, it's not all that technically challenging.
That's what I said. It's not a technology issue. And when I tout the use of wireless, in my mind the *right* way to do it is to seemlessly blend cellular wireless with WIFI. Imagine a device that could do both (some PDA phones can do this)... you start a download on WIFI as you leave the house and get into your car. Your WIFI signal drops and the download application automatically opens up a cell connection and continues the download. At the same time your car's radio connects via bluetooth or WIFI to your device and your personal "radio station" begins playing from your device through your car stereo. As new content trickles in, it gets mixed into the play list. All of this is possible today, and has, in fact, been possible for a few years now. What is lacking is the software to bring it all together.
This move is long overdue. Hopefully Apple will do a better job than Microsoft did. It is *so* 90's to have to dock your player just to get music into it. The technology exists today to make a very capable wireless media player, what is missing is someone (Apple?) to make it useful and functional. The possibilities are endless. Imagine "Mall Radio Stations", audio lectures or supplemental material distributed wirelessly to all the students in the classroom, having a playlist at a party that is a composite of all the wireless devices in the room/house. Let the next wave of portable music players begin!
I see your point. I think both of our observations fall squarely under the category of "unintended consequences" of the F/OSS movement, though I think the loss of taxable transactions is real today, whereas the potential for suing over lost revenue is hypothetical (I hope).
Slashdot Mirror
Well first off, the difference between a 45% increase in the debt and a 38% increase in the debt ain't chicken feed. In fact, if Bush's next 2 years match his previous six, his total contribution will be ~(33/6)*8 or about 44% (plus a smidge for compounding). This would be basically identical to Clinton's 45%. Now admittedly under Clinton the trend was downward - in fact the budget was nearly balanced at the end (mostly thanks to the massive tax receipts from the bubble-induced capital gains). Significantly, Bush's deficits (as those NYTimes articles showed) are also dropping steeply, and those drops are also due to supply-side gains (ie more revenue due to economic activity, not cuts in spending). Clearly Bush will not get close to a balanced budget in 2 years, and in fact the annual deficit will most likely exceed that of Clinton as he left office. We could talk about the reasons for that, like 9/11 (terrorist's fault), Iraq (Bush's fault), Katrina (nature's fault), stock market bubble burst (greed's fault), or we could be intellectually lazy and say it's all Bush's "taxcuts for the rich" that caused it.
As regards "Bush routinely playing games with his deficit projections", those numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office, not from Bush.
I appreciate your civil response. It is the exception rather than the rule in these parts. Yes, we can agree completely. Invariably, one side or the other of a debate will use percentages to bolster their argument. As an aside, it is my experience that most people don't think in percentages (which is why things like stock splits have an affect on the stock price), but I find them to be a very useful normalizer. Anyhow, recall that one of my central points is that the lion's share of the taxes are paid by the "rich" (insert your own favorite definition of what that means). This is not debatable, it is fact. So, in order to have any kind of meaningful tax cut (i.e. one that has substantive impact on the federal budget) it follows that one MUST cut taxes to the rich, since that is where most of the money is coming from. So, in the end, while technically it is accurate to refer to them as "taxcuts for the rich", there is really simply no other way to do an *effective* taxcut. In reality, Bush's cuts are called "for the rich" purely to divide and polarize (accusations that are customarily hurled at the conservatives), and it bothers me because it doesn't advance discussion, it (as you correctly point out, and as this thread proves), incites arguments. On that I assume we can agree?
As far as projections to Bush's 8 year number, those are projections. In fact, as the economy gains steam we are seeing frequent down-scoping of the projected deficits for the next two years, so we'll just have to see what the number ends up as, won't we?
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09ec
Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v63n1/v63n1p34
There was in fact a surplus at the end of Clinton's second term. it was due to good policies put through by President Clinton working in conjunction with a Republican-led Congress to hold the line on spending. But the biggest component of the surplus was the supply-side up-tick in federal revenues driven in large part by the huge capital gains taxes paid during the bubble in the stock market. In fact an interesting, but not often discussed aspect of the current deficits is that many businesses and individuals are still recovering from the bubble burst; they are still claiming investment losses incurred in 2000, 2001 against today's income and stock market gains. This is of course due to the $3000 limit on investment losses (over and above any gains in that tax year) one can declare in any given tax year.
I explicitly said I was referring to the federal taxes, since those are the ones Bush is responsible for (that was the discussion after all). And no, you are wrong, it is not a tax cut to give people who don't pay any taxes a handout. This is really very simple: you can't cut someone's taxes if they don't pay any taxes. And that's all I was saying. Giving them a handout (paid for by other taxpayers) does NOT constitute a taxcut for that poor person. If I never went to the food store, my grocery bill would be $0. If I then went to the grocery store and they gave me $5, that would not be a cut in my grocery bill. It would be a gift, or a handout, or charity, depending on the giver's intentions. Please don't follow the usual "progressive" technique of redefining the language to suit your own purposes. WE all know what the meaning of the word is is.
Now why did I wade into this firestorm one might ask? It drives me crazy when people say, reflexively, Bush's "taxcuts-for-the-rich" like it's some sort of special class of tax cuts; like it's possible to give serious tax cuts (i.e. tax cuts that will substantively reduce the federal intake, leaving money in the private sector where it can do some good) to the "working poor", even though they hardly pay any taxes to begin with. This is especially rankling when one also realizes that the child tax credits were a huge taxcut for the "working poor", virtually eliminating all federal taxes for many at the lower income levels (it was a tax credit so if you paid no taxes, you got no tax credit). So, percentage-wise, actually the poor were the bigger beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. Of course on an absolute basis the rich got the majority of the cut; there is simply no other way to do it and still have a tax cut. So, to call a taxcut "for the rich" is redundant, obvious, and therefore not informative. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. If you have a tax cut, BY DEFINITION, the rich benefit. Have I said it enough times for it to sink in?
Nice analogy that perfectly demonstrates my point. You see, I might have a full house and be feeling pretty good about myself - even willing to declare that I have the best hand in the game. But I really don't know how good my hand is until everyone shows theirs. Conversely, I might have a pair of deuces and be tempted to fold. Lo and behold, it could prove to be the winning hand once all the other hands are shown.
That is an interesting chart. I see that during Clinton's years, the debt went up about 50% ($4T to $6T). During Bush's years (so far) it has gone up about 33% ($6T yo $8T). Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
The fact that the deficit as a percent of GDP is the same as it was during the Clinton years strikes me as a pretty good argument actually. I was refuting the claim that Bush is spending the US into the poorhouse. By demonstrating that the deficit is no worse than it was during the mid 90s I think I rather handily disproved the claim.
well, you conveniently ignore the fact that at 70% it is the same as it was in the Clinton years, when there was no war ...
Ummm, sorry ... Enron happened during the Clinton years. During Bush's term they got caught (and severely punished).
Speaking of silly statements, let's continue to examine your undeniably false, post:
NASA's budget has gone up during Bush's 6 years. It went down during the Clinton years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget And the vast majority of NASA's budget has been for the shuttle, which is used mostly to build the space station, not military missions (sorry - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts)
Yeah, it's a coincidence it happened weeks after we caught Sadam (after Libya was a "rogue" nation for the better part of 2 decades)
The economy started to rebound, and the market began to jump, shortly after the tax cuts and the changes to the tax code reducing the rate at which dividends would be taxed.
Why is it that the brainless invariably post AC?
The US national debt as a percentage of GDP (projected by the OMB in the 2007 budget) will rise to reach the level it peaked at near the end of Clinton's first term (about 70%) http://zfacts.com/p/318.html While high by historical comparison, the nation is waging a very expensive war, and for wartime it's actually somewhat low (it went to 120% during WWII). Certainly the trade imbalance is worrisome, but that is hardly Bush's fault. That is more, as you correctly observe, a reflection of our collective hunger fo cheap imports. And yes, I agree, it will catch up with us before too long.
The list of good things that have occurred during Bush's 2 terms is fairly long (as, sadly, is the list of bad things). Now most here will say that Bush had nothing to do with those successes, but then they blame him for everything bad. In my view you can't have it both ways. Anyhow, in the end history will judge this presidency. It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it.
BTW, I am not an iPod owner -- can you listen to your iPod while it's downloading music? If not, why not? In my mind, downloading should be a background activity - kick it off and then some time later it will be done. Think bittorrent. With wireless, for example, I *could* simply kick off a huge download (like my entire music collection), and eventually it would finish
No, the party host would have a wireless-capable receiver. Then each guest that happened to have a (compatible - i.e. Apple "WiPod") wireless media player could make their music available to that receiver. You could even imagine this turning into some sort of contest/game where people with wireless devices could "vote" when they heard a song they liked
This move is long overdue. Hopefully Apple will do a better job than Microsoft did. It is *so* 90's to have to dock your player just to get music into it. The technology exists today to make a very capable wireless media player, what is missing is someone (Apple?) to make it useful and functional. The possibilities are endless. Imagine "Mall Radio Stations", audio lectures or supplemental material distributed wirelessly to all the students in the classroom, having a playlist at a party that is a composite of all the wireless devices in the room/house. Let the next wave of portable music players begin!
I see your point. I think both of our observations fall squarely under the category of "unintended consequences" of the F/OSS movement, though I think the loss of taxable transactions is real today, whereas the potential for suing over lost revenue is hypothetical (I hope).