Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If you have a fairer yardstick (I'm not joining the "metric" crowd - I'm old school) I'd be interested to hear it.

Not trying to be snarky, but, yeah - votes.

Reason I say that is, performance numbers are more akin to weather patterns than widget production. Too many variables. I think it would be more accurate to forecast effects of tax cuts with ranges, or trends, than with hard numbers. If the numbers are failing to meet the published expectations (I don't remember those), but are trending the right way, is it a failure? I don't think that case has been made.

The numbers, like I said, are like the weather. If they get it right two out of five days, they're doing well, becuase no one can correct for the beeelyons and beeelyons of variables. So, significant? Not really. The trend is significant. Can I completely and firmly credit the tax cuts for this? Nope. But I can lean that way while acknowledging the futility of precise measurement.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Looks like David Kay has had enough of combing the desert.

"Kay is thinking of leaving before a final report and perhaps before the next interim report," which is due in February, a senior administration official said yesterday. The survey group is slated to submit its final report next fall. The official said there will be a meeting next week at CIA headquarters where "the next steps will be discussed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec17.html

I was kind of hoping for the story to say something how Kay's next "job" will be as a building inspector for the Syrian government or something like that.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, you're saying 'da judge reinstated the Clinton phase-out?

That's my understanding.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not trying to be snarky, but, yeah - votes.

Reason I say that is, performance numbers are more akin to weather patterns than widget production. Too many variables. I think it would be more accurate to forecast effects of tax cuts with ranges, or trends, than with hard numbers. If the numbers are failing to meet the published expectations (I don't remember those), but are trending the right way, is it a failure? I don't think that case has been made.

I'm not really looking for you to proclaim the policy as a failure. I'm just saying that if they publish projections that support their policy at the time of its adoption, and those projections call for x number of jobs to be created before the end of 2003, and now that we've reached the end of 2003 they are clearly short of x, can we really credit the admin's steady hand on the tiller for the .1% decrease in unemployment without acknowledging that shortfall?

It sounds like you are saying "we're in power, so we call it successful until you can prove otherwise." And, just as you observe, performance numbers are not susceptible to that kind of analysis, so your point is made. But you'll have to excuse me for being less than convinced that this admin has been very effective on this point, by its own standards.

"Trending the right way" seems rather nonresponsive when the economy is falling off the pace to create the 4.1 million jobs through the end of 2004 that were projected even without the tax cuts, much less the additional 1.4 million promised as a result of the tax cuts.

btw, I couldn't find the cite for the monthly projection numbers I posted a few weeks ago, so fyi here is a report from the council of economic advisors that has the aggregated annual projection numbers:
http://www.jobwatch.org/creating/bkg...ro_effects.pdf

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'm not really looking for you to proclaim the policy as a failure. . . .

Funny, it sure sounds that way. The economy is rebounding, contrary to what was predicted by many during the tax cut fight, and over the last year, but now the argument has changed, of necessity, from "it'll sink us", to "it's jobless", to "it's not as fast of a jump in jobs as it should be". If nothing else, I am in awe of the adaptivity shown in this regard.

And, I wasn't saying "we're in power, so we are by definition successful". I was saying, there really is no accurate way to correct out unknown variables, meaning there's really no truly precise way to measure the failure or success of the tax cuts, so we might as well simply pick some arbitrary measure like votes. It's certainly not LESS accurate than the other ways.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Funny, it sure sounds that way. The economy is rebounding, contrary to what was predicted by many during the tax cut fight, and over the last year, but now the argument has changed, of necessity, from "it'll sink us", to "it's jobless", to "it's not as fast of a jump in jobs as it should be". If nothing else, I am in awe of the adaptivity shown in this regard.

Agreed. This is the same tact used in other arenas. It goes from "he's a miserable failurem" to "we still haven't caught Saddam" to "Catching Saddam hasn't made us safer." These people need to get their head our of their ass and step back for a moment. THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER. Are they perfect? No. Will they ever be? Of course not. But that they are getting better is really not a matter that is debatable right now. So if your remaining argument is "Things are not as good as you promised they would be" well, OK you are probably right so far. But give it time. It has only been 8 months since we went into Iraq. The tax cuts have only been in effect for about that same amount of time (though they were retroactive to 1/1).

Another note. You are both right to say its hard to judge the effects of the tax cut. What makes it even harder is that THE TAX CUT REALLY HASN'T GONE INTO EFFECT YET! The bulk of it is back ended.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Funny, it sure sounds that way.

Not that you have to take me at my word, but fyi I don't come here to try to get right wing posters to admit that the every Bush admin policy has been a failure. If converting the wicked republicans was really a life goal of mine there are quite a few people that would be on the list ahead of you or club or the pubic hair on a coke can guy. People that I like in real life, for example.

I'm pretty sheltered from red-state viewpoints out here in the land of the radical lefties, so generally I post because I'm more interested in seeing how obviously intelligent (YMMV) people can arrive at viewpoints diametrically opposed to mine. In that vein, I was just curious as to whether there was some other basis for saying that the economy was no longer a problem for the admin.

The economy is rebounding, contrary to what was predicted by many during the tax cut fight, and over the last year, but now the argument has changed, of necessity, from "it'll sink us", to "it's jobless", to "it's not as fast of a jump in jobs as it should be". If nothing else, I am in awe of the adaptivity shown in this regard.

I'm not pointing at these numbers to say that you yourself had promised these jobs, so I'm not quite sure why you are implicitly attributing to me those previous arguments made by others. I'm just using the numbers the admin itself gave out as my measuring stick for our economic performance so far. If that's adaptivity, then I'm Carl the chameleon.

I bring this up in response to sgtclub's repeated postings of positive job creation information, because in my mind it is an incomplete picture to say "well we've got some new jobs" without adding "but the performance has fallen short than the proponents of the plan had projected." If you think that is an unfair burden to meet then of course you can disagree, but I was quite interested in hearing some other way to evaluate this. You apprently don't have any to suggest. OK.

Frankly, my big problem with the tax cuts is the massive growth in spending that has accompanied them, so even if the economy was going gangbusters I'd still be unhappy about the deficits created. As Bentsen said, give me a $100 billion credit card and I'll show some economic growth too. But then again, to have multiple justifications for my opposition makes me shamelessly adaptive in your eyes, so I should probably keep that to myself. ]

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is the same tact used in other arenas. It goes from "he's a miserable failurem" to "we still haven't caught Saddam" to "Catching Saddam hasn't made us safer." These people need to get their head our of their ass and step back for a moment. THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER. Are they perfect? No. Will they ever be? Of course not. But that they are getting better is really not a matter that is debatable right now. So if your remaining argument is "Things are not as good as you promised they would be" well, OK you are probably right so far. But give it time.

I'm happy to give it time. I was just wondering if by saying the jobs picture is rosier you are ignoring the admin's projections at the time of the tax cut. It sounds like you are. I'm not calling you or them a liar or anything because of it, so don't assume that I'm on the same "tact" as these other folks you cite.

Another note. You are both right to say its hard to judge the effects of the tax cut. What makes it even harder is that THE TAX CUT REALLY HASN'T GONE INTO EFFECT YET! The bulk of it is back ended.

OK, but wouldn't the projections TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT?

[Atticus Grinch]

Rumors persist, from credible sources and -- ahem -- others* that Arnold will be commuting to Sacramento from the tony S.F. Peninsula enclave we like to call Atherton. No confirmation yet, but it seems that Arnold is being persuaded to buy there by a friend and potential Easy Street neighbor, Oracle founder and asshat-about-town Larry "Richest Non-Microsoft Man in America" Ellison.

Oh, and meanwhile Arnold proposes to cut funding for the Lanterman Act, which provides in-home services to the developmentally disabled. Merry Christmas, Benny Stulwicz!

*Rush Limbaugh piece that is (unintentionally) funny in that it includes "if you need that bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz in your night life."

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
*Rush Limbaugh piece that is (unintentionally) funny in that it includes "if you need that bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz in your night life."

Beyond that, there's this:

It's about a two-hour commute to Sacramento, which I think is a little exaggerated unless he’s commuting by helicopter and avoiding all that traffic.

Two hours from Atherton to Sacramento "exaggerated?"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Oh, and meanwhile Arnold proposes to cut funding for the Lanterman Act, which provides in-home services to the developmentally disabled. Merry Christmas, Benny Stulwicz!

In all seriousness, could he have picked a line item to cut with which you would have been happy?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Two hours from Atherton to Sacramento "exaggerated?"

I think he must have been thinking of a different word. The way he was probably thinking of a different word when he came up with "Excellence in Broadcasting."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
These people need to get their head our of their ass and step back for a moment. THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER. Are they perfect? No. Will they ever be? Of course not. But that they are getting better is really not a matter that is debatable right now.

To be somewhat cynical . . . So f-ing what?

By almost every statistical measure Americans could create, on almost evey tangible issue Americans knew about and cared about, just about everything was getting better for America all throughout the second Clinton Administration. Yet, somehow, GWB is President now. If the above is the standard to apply, you guys should have shut up and left Clinon alone, and voted for Gore.

S_A_M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In all seriousness, could he have picked a line item to cut with which you would have been happy?

In all seriousness, if we're cutting services to the retarded and brain-damaged, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RESCINDED THE FUCKING VEHICLE LICENSE FEE.

So now there will be a waiting list. If one of my children is born with a developmental disability, my family is going to have to wait for another disabled child to DIE before help can be obtained.

Wasn't Schwarzenegger supposed to close the budget gap by auditing the state and finding all sorts of waste, fraud, and abuse? Oh, I get it. To a Republican, social service programs that keep misfortunate parents of disabled children out of bankruptcy are de facto wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive.

Confidential to Bilmore: I now concede Minnesota does not have a monopoly on insensitive assholes pandering to ideological extremists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
In all seriousness, if we're cutting services to the retarded and brain-damaged, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE RESCINDED THE FUCKING VEHICLE LICENSE FEE.

Honestly, if they would just work a little harder they wouldn't be on the dole. They just need to show more discipline.