All Things Pro-Hillary

[NorthSideSox72]

I am being honest. We really don't need more tax. What we need is less bureaucracy wasting away all of the revenue. This country really sucks my ass when it comes to fiscal responsibility. War might be expensive but its only about half of the problem.

Max-

 

Please read, agree to and post acknowledgement in the MUST READ thread at the top of this forum, prior to posting again here. Its something everyone has to do.

 

---

 

But on the subject, I do not see how you can say that war "might be" expensive, or that its only half the problem. Its INSANELY expense - Iraq has cost us a TRILLION DOLLARS for crying out loud. We could have solved world hunger by now with that kind of money. Or more seriously, we could have put ourselves on track to become energy independent, and dramatically improve our schools, with money left over. Its 90% of the problem easily.

 

That said, I certainly agree with you that a lot of money is wasted by our inept bureaucracy. No doubt about it.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

Or...if they lose...the religious folks can claim that the reason they lost is that they nominated a candidate that wasn't big with their group and that was their biggest mistake.

 

Oh I'm aware that is EXACTLY what is going to happen if McCain loses, which is why this election is so important for the direction of the republican party. If McCain loses, the Republican party will continue to steer further and further right and also continue to lose seats in Congress. I mean, they'll lose seats in congress regardless of what McCain does in November, but the rate of seat loss will only get worse in the next 4 years if McCain loses and the party keeps going to the right.

Edited May 2, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[lostfan]

I am being honest. We really don't need more tax. What we need is less bureaucracy wasting away all of the revenue. This country really sucks my ass when it comes to fiscal responsibility. War might be expensive but its only about half of the problem.

NSS already said what I was going to say, the war is ridiculously expensive. There's really no way to downplay that. When you spend more you need more revenue to cover it. Arbitrary tax cuts aren't any more beneficial for the economy than wasteful spending because the end result is the same (where's that approach gotten this economy now, after all?).

 

Balanced budget ftw. We had one. Now, umm... yeah.

Edited May 2, 2008 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

NSS already said what I was going to say, the war is ridiculously expensive. There's really no way to downplay that. When you spend more you need more revenue to cover it. Arbitrary tax cuts aren't any more beneficial for the economy than wasteful spending because the end result is the same (where's that approach gotten this economy now, after all?).

 

Balanced budget ftw. We had one. Now, umm... yeah.

 

What people won't tell you is that no one would have managed a balanced budget during this administration, Iraq or no Iraq. The Clinton recession and 9-11 destroyed that chance.

[NorthSideSox72]

What people won't tell you is that no one would have managed a balanced budget during this administration, Iraq or no Iraq. The Clinton recession and 9-11 destroyed that chance.

OK, what the heck is the bolded about?

 

And the budget could have been balanced by now if not for Iraq.

 

[jackie hayes]

OK, what the heck is the bolded about?

 

And the budget could have been balanced by now if not for Iraq.

I'd have to check, but I doubt that's true after the tax cuts, and maybe the Medicare drug benefit.

[bmags]

the Medicare drug benefit.

 

thassa big one.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd have to check, but I doubt that's true after the tax cuts, and maybe the Medicare drug benefit.

I don't think the tax cuts were $300B a year. Maybe they are though - I could be wrong.

 

[jackie hayes]

I don't think the tax cuts were $300B a year. Maybe they are though - I could be wrong.

I believe they are approaching that level. When you add in interest on the extra debt (which will be in the tens of billions) and the Medicare drug benefit (modest cost now -- just glanced at some articles earlier, seems estimates for current costs are something like $40 to $60 bil -- projections are much worse), I'm sure it's in the ballpark, though I can't say for sure it's more than that.

[southsider2k5]

OK, what the heck is the bolded about?

 

And the budget could have been balanced by now if not for Iraq.

 

The recession that Bush inherited officially started in March of 2001, WAY before he could have actually had time to screw up anything economically enough to actually have caused it himself. The velocity of money dictates that most major economic actions take somewhere between six months and a year to really be felt in our economy. Therefore the recession that started in 3-01, came about because of economic actions during the Clinton administration.

[lostfan]

The recession that Bush inherited officially started in March of 2001, WAY before he could have actually had time to screw up anything economically enough to actually have caused it himself. The velocity of money dictates that most major economic actions take somewhere between six months and a year to really be felt in our economy. Therefore the recession that started in 3-01, came about because of economic actions during the Clinton administration.

I've heard this before. I can't recall specifics because I didn't pay much attention to that kind of stuff back then but it sounds like you're talking about the dot-com bust, that had nothing really to do with Clinton or Clinton's policies so it's unfair to assign credit or blame. The record-setting period of expansion (that inevitably had to end somehow, eventually) didn't really have that much to do with Clinton either except for the fact that he didn't get in the way. Bush more or less had a healthy economy when he took office before he was handed the 9-11 turd sandwich, and even then it recovered in a relatively short time.

[kapkomet]

I think the point is if everyone wants to b**** about GWB and his handling of the economy, then those same people who b**** about that needs to b**** about Clinton and his recessionary policies as well.

 

The bigger point is neither one of them really has much influence over recessions.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think the point is if everyone wants to b**** about GWB and his handling of the economy, then those same people who b**** about that needs to b**** about Clinton and his recessionary policies as well.

 

The bigger point is neither one of them really has much influence over recessions.

That's the key right there. I understand no what SS2K5 was referring to, and its certainly true that GWB had nothing to do with the recession that hit the country in 2001. He had zero control over that.

 

And putting all other issues aside and looking at the economy, I think GWB did a few good things early on in his Presidency. I thought the tax rebates in late '01 were a good move at that time - it was a decelerator for the worsening economy. I thought the lowering of the cap gains tax rates was a good idea (though I honestly don't recall if that was really anything he had to do with, or if it was Congress, and I'm fuzzy exactly when it occurred). But then he went waaaaaaay off track economically. He entered an insanely expensive and stupid war, he tried to cut numerous other taxes while doing it, he allowed the budget deficits to skyrocket, the attempts at business regulation were awful, trade policies were short-sighted... he just really went off the rails. And yes, that collection of actions has had a negative effect on the economy.

 

[kapkomet]

That's the key right there. I understand no what SS2K5 was referring to, and its certainly true that GWB had nothing to do with the recession that hit the country in 2001. He had zero control over that.

 

And putting all other issues aside and looking at the economy, I think GWB did a few good things early on in his Presidency. I thought the tax rebates in late '01 were a good move at that time - it was a decelerator for the worsening economy. I thought the lowering of the cap gains tax rates was a good idea (though I honestly don't recall if that was really anything he had to do with, or if it was Congress, and I'm fuzzy exactly when it occurred). But then he went waaaaaaay off track economically. He entered an insanely expensive and stupid war, he tried to cut numerous other taxes while doing it, he allowed the budget deficits to skyrocket, the attempts at business regulation were awful, trade policies were short-sighted... he just really went off the rails. And yes, that collection of actions has had a negative effect on the economy.

There's so much of that he DIDN'T control... but I guess that's a debate for another time because I better get to working on stuff.

 

I

 

[Balta1701]

I believe they are approaching that level. When you add in interest on the extra debt (which will be in the tens of billions) and the Medicare drug benefit (modest cost now -- just glanced at some articles earlier, seems estimates for current costs are something like $40 to $60 bil -- projections are much worse), I'm sure it's in the ballpark, though I can't say for sure it's more than that.

Without worrying about the other factors and just going to the raw "How much are we expecting to cut taxes by" numbers, the 2001 tax cut was supposed to cut taxes by $1.3 trillion over 10 years, the 2002 tax cut was supposed to be roughly an additional $100 billion, and in 2003 they cut Capital Gains and Dividend taxes on a scale that was supposed to but $300 billion in taxes by 2008.

[jackie hayes]

Without worrying about the other factors and just going to the raw "How much are we expecting to cut taxes by" numbers, the 2001 tax cut was supposed to cut taxes by $1.3 trillion over 10 years, the 2002 tax cut was supposed to be roughly an additional $100 billion, and in 2003 they cut Capital Gains and Dividend taxes on a scale that was supposed to but $300 billion in taxes by 2008.

Yeah, I looked at the CBO projections, and the 2001 law was projected to have a net effect of $160 bil in 2008. I can't tell if that includes additional interest payments -- it doesn't seem to, but I didn't look close enough to be certain. The 2002 law projection had a revenue increase by 2008 of $16, the 2003 law projection was an additional $16 bil in the red for 2008, so those roughly cancel.

 

But it would be nice to get ex post estimates of the effect. And there are also problems with those projections -- they are loaded with sunset provisions, and none considered the effect of the AMT fix that happens every year.

[Balta1701]

But it would be nice to get ex post estimates of the effect. And there are also problems with those projections -- they are loaded with sunset provisions, and none considered the effect of the AMT fix that happens every year.

The trouble is of course...a valid estimate after the fact of how much was done by the tax cuts to the budget is essentially impossible, because the system itself is so complex. You can of course calculate how much would have been taken in had there not been tax cuts and had the economy done exactly the same thing, but that number is basically useless because the economy wouldn't do the same thing. The tax cuts in 01 probably did serve to stimulate the economy, but I don't think I trust really anyone's numbers on exactly how much. Conversely, keeping the tax cuts in place and borrowing money from overseas like it's going out of style has played right in to the inflation pressures pushing the dollar down and the price of oil higher like we're seeing now, and so it might well have the effect of weakening the same economy under one set of conditions that it might have strengthened under another.

[jackie hayes]

The trouble is of course...a valid estimate after the fact of how much was done by the tax cuts to the budget is essentially impossible, because the system itself is so complex. You can of course calculate how much would have been taken in had there not been tax cuts and had the economy done exactly the same thing, but that number is basically useless because the economy wouldn't do the same thing. The tax cuts in 01 probably did serve to stimulate the economy, but I don't think I trust really anyone's numbers on exactly how much. Conversely, keeping the tax cuts in place and borrowing money from overseas like it's going out of style has played right in to the inflation pressures pushing the dollar down and the price of oil higher like we're seeing now, and so it might well have the effect of weakening the same economy under one set of conditions that it might have strengthened under another.

I don't agree with that. The projections are done on the same system, all the complexities are still there. After-the-fact estimates would use the same methodology, but instead of using projections of fundamental shocks to the system, you can use the actual shocks as identified by the model. CBO projections do take into account the stimulus effects of a tax cut.

 

Of course you can argue with the model, but then the same arguments would apply to the projections. Ex post estimates really won't be any worse.

[Gregory Pratt]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comment.../clinton_1.html

 

A Clinton adviser said the situation was increasingly becoming one in which 'she cannot be nominated and he can't get elected.' "

[NorthSideSox72]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comment.../clinton_1.html

LOL, that's funny coming from Clinton, who is far less electable against the GOP than Obama is. They are seriously grasping at straws now.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Depends on who you're talking to, Obama is more electable against Republicans.

[Soxy]

LOL, that's funny coming from Clinton, who is far less electable against the GOP than Obama is. They are seriously grasping at straws now.

I actually disagree--I think they have all the dirt on Clinton they will get. But who knows what they will find with Obama. And, this is pure speculation from me, but I think his wife might be a campaign liability.

[southsider2k5]

I actually disagree--I think they have all the dirt on Clinton they will get. But who knows what they will find with Obama. And, this is pure speculation from me, but I think his wife might be a campaign liability.

 

I could see that. There have been a couple of times where she has stuck her foot in her mouth already. She has been much quieter for a while now though.

[lostfan]

I could see that. There have been a couple of times where she has stuck her foot in her mouth already. She has been much quieter for a while now though.

At this point, who hasn't? All 3 of the candidates have done it at some point.

 

And with all the focus on the Democratic primaries and the media mostly ignoring McCain for the time being, could you imagine if it had been Hillary or Obama with one of McCain's major slip-ups? Or if this were the general? It's only as big of a deal as the media makes it out to be.

[southsider2k5]

At this point, who hasn't? All 3 of the candidates have done it at some point.

 

And with all the focus on the Democratic primaries and the media mostly ignoring McCain for the time being, could you imagine if it had been Hillary or Obama with one of McCain's major slip-ups? Or if this were the general? It's only as big of a deal as the media makes it out to be.

 

I'm definately not saying the other candidates and their proxies haven't screwed up at one point or another. The problem with McCain is that he is saying stupid things when no one cares about. Once Hillary is out of the race, that will change.