Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Assumptions all on your part.

Pressure on the White House to be accountable could work wonders.

Bottom line: The White House can't do it much worse than they're doing it now.

No assumptions. Just the reality. It is really scary when people start buying their own B.S. No matter what happened in Iraq the Democrats would be painting the worst picture possible.

Things couldn't be much worse? We have lost 2.5 soldiers a day since we have been there. The murder rate in New York City has been higher than that. The invasion could have been a disaster, and there could be full out civil war. In a real Civil War both sides hold territory and both sides can be out in the open.

It is completely in the Bush administration's interest that things go well in Iraq. They are doing what they think is prudent. Complaints by the Democrats are not going to change anything. There is not a single Democrat in Congress that knows better what to do in Iraq than the militiary leadership that is there. The Bush administratioan will never take advice from Democrat congressmen and they shouldn't. Why should they? The only difference is if they get into power they will become obstructionists.

After Watergate the Democrats had such power that they completely cut off funding for the South Vietnamese. A peace treaty and a cease fire had been signed. It held for a while but then during watergate the North Vietnamese broke the treaty and we could do nothing about it. Congress would not allow any more funds go to South Vietnam. No policy, just obstruction.

Congress can not help when it comes to foreign policy. All they can do obstruct. If they get into power they will do whatever they can to make the Bush administration look bad. The only difference is that they will have the power off cutting off funding to make the Bush administration look bad.

What Democrat proposal has there been that if followed would improve things in Iraq?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oh, all right. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Bush's own economists say Bush policies lowered tax revenues

• ALAN D. VIARD, a former Bush White House economist currently at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, recently told the Washington Post: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
  
  He's right. There's no dispute among economists. Conservative, moderate or liberal, every credentialed economist agrees that the Bush tax cuts caused revenues to drop. There is, however, a dispute between economists and pseudo-economists. Supply-siders may be laughed at by real economists, but they still enjoy a strong following among politicians, including, alas, the president of the United States.

Oh, Alan. Why must you hate America? Must you join David Kuo as the new member(s) of the Axis of Evil?

This is just one guy. Why does it say economists. 90 percent of economists buy the supply side argument. How could they not. Democrats citing economists to back up their arguments is like creationists citing geologists and biologists to back up their arguments. In other words, it is either a lone voice in the wilderness, a crack pot, or a statment taken out of context.

If you had the choice of taxing an economy with a GDP of 100 billion at a rate of thirty five percent a year and got a two percent growth rate, or taxing an economy with a GDP of 100 billion dollars at ten percet a year giving it a four percent growth rate. In the long run which one would give you more revenue.

Still think the Supply side argument is B.S?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
No assumptions. Just the reality. It is really scary when people start buying their own B.S. No matter what happened in Iraq the Democrats would be painting the worst picture possible.

Things couldn't be much worse? We have lost 2.5 soldiers a day since we have been there. The murder rate in New York City has been higher than that. The invasion could have been a disaster, and there could be full out civil war. In a real Civil War both sides hold territory and both sides can be out in the open.

It is completely in the Bush administration's interest that things go well in Iraq. They are doing what they think is prudent. Complaints by the Democrats are not going to change anything. There is not a single Democrat in Congress that knows better what to do in Iraq than the militiary leadership that is there. The Bush administratioan will never take advice from Democrat congressmen and they shouldn't. Why should they? The only difference is if they get into power they will become obstructionists.

After Watergate the Democrats had such power that they completely cut off funding for the South Vietnamese. A peace treaty and a cease fire had been signed. It held for a while but then during watergate the North Vietnamese broke the treaty and we could do nothing about it. Congress would not allow any more funds go to South Vietnam. No policy, just obstruction.

Congress can not help when it comes to foreign policy. All they can do obstruct. If they get into power they will do whatever they can to make the Bush administration look bad. The only difference is that they will have the power off cutting off funding to make the Bush administration look bad.

What Democrat proposal has there been that if followed would improve things in Iraq?

You drive the car off the cliff and ask me what my plan is?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is just one guy. Why does it say economists. 90 percent of economists buy the supply side argument. How could they not. Democrats citing economists to back up their arguments is like creationists citing geologists and biologists to back up their arguments. In other words, it is either a lone voice in the wilderness, a crack pot, or a statment taken out of context.

If you had the choice of taxing an economy with a GDP of 100 billion at a rate of thirty five percent a year and got a two percent growth rate, or taxing an economy with a GDP of 100 billion dollars at ten percet a year giving it a four percent growth rate. In the long run which one would give you more revenue.

Still think the Supply side argument is B.S?

Yes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is not a single Democrat in Congress that knows better what to do in Iraq than the militiary leadership that is there. The Bush administratioan will never take advice from Democrat congressmen and they shouldn't. Why should they?

My question is, will the Bush Administration take advice sometime from the military leadership that is there?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is just one guy. Why does it say economists.

You make it sound like the person quoted is some crackpot selling pencils on Farragut Square. He's someone from Bush's own economic team, and he's now with AEI, hardly a weenie commie liberal group.

90 percent of economists buy the supply side argument. How could they not.

That's a fascinating postulate. In fact, however, the former economist from your own Administration is saying that "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." Statements like this will probably cause Reagan to turn in his grave, and Viard to be added to the Axis of Evil, but in the meantime, can you tell me the origins of your 90 percent argument?

FWIW, the original WaPo article also mentions that this poor, former Bush Administration official-turned-crackpot-now-at-the-commie-pinko-AEI is not alone.

• Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.
  
  Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Carroll. You motherfucker. Spanky, it's spreading! DO something!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
My question is, will the Bush Administration take advice sometime from the military leadership that is there?

It is a matter of dispute as to whether they are listening to them now. Bush and Rumsfield say they are, others say they are not.

I tend to believe them. Why would they lie? It is in other people's interest to lie, because the Democrats and allies want to make them seem incompetant. I believe the execution of the war went well because they listenened to the guys on the ground. I think they have followed that policy but in this case (the occupation) it has not gone as well as they would have liked.

But the Democrats controlling congress will only make things worse. The Democrats want the white house in 2008 and they are going to do everything in their power to make the situation in Iraq look like a screw up. If they control the purse that will mean they will just have more power to make things seem worse.

[Spanky]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
This is just one guy. Why does it say economists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you say:

Originally posted by Gattigap
You make it sound like the person quoted is some crackpot selling pencils on Farragut Square. He's someone from Bush's own economic team, and he's now with AEI, hardly a weenie commie liberal group.

So you agree that it is one guy. So again, why do they say economists? So if one former economist says that the government is not bringing in as much revenue as it would without the tax cuts does not mean that he disagrees with Supply Side. The damning point would be if said that the tax cuts did not bring more growth. The only way this statement could be ascribed as to disputing Supply Side Economics would be if it said the tax cut brought in absolutely no increase in growth. But if he didn't say that then he means that the tax cut has not brought in more revenue - YET.

Originally posted by Gattigap
That's a fascinating postulate. In fact, however, the former economist from your own Administration is saying that "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." Statements like this will probably cause Reagan to turn in his grave, and Viard to be added to the Axis of Evil, but in the meantime, can you tell me the origins of your 90 percent argument?

OK first there is an assumption that other people agree with them but he brings in no evidence. All Economists understand that growth is more important than rates when it comes to tax revenue. The only question is, does the current tax rates maximise economic growth. If they do not, then a tax cut would certainly bring in more growth. I would argue that very few economist, much less than ten percent, agree that the current tax rates maximise growth (or that they need to be higher to maximise growth).

Originally posted by Gattigap

• Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.
  

• So they all agree there has been some economic growth fueld by the tax cuts. All the economist that agree that some growth was brought about by the tax cuts, all agree that eventually the tax cuts will bring in more revenue than if they were not instituted. The only question is how much time will it take. Any of these economists that agree that the tax cut has increased economic growth is by definition a supply side economist. The only argument that would argue against supply side economics would be to say that the tax cuts have brought in NO economic growth. And I don't think anyone is saying that.
  
  

  Originally posted by Gattigap Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Carroll. You motherfucker. Spanky, it's spreading! DO something!

Of course no one would say that the tax cuts are the only thing that led to growth. Of course there would be more than one factor. The last quote is suspect. That sentence has to be taken out of context. If it wasn't it would be a headline in the New York Times. In addition, Caroll wouldn't have his job right now. My guess is that he is saying that tax cuts don't pay for themselves in the short run. And everyone agrees with that. A tax cut will always bring a short fall in revenue in the the next year and maybe even for a few years. The question is do they pay for themselves in the long run. If the tax cuts bring in just a little bit of growth then eventually they will pay for themselves.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
One thing is certain. With a Democrat takeover of the House all those things you have listed above will be harder to accomplish.

Why? Plausibly, with a Democratic House the military will have more support in its battle with Rumsfeld, and will have a better chance of prosecuting the conflict the way it sees best.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is just one guy. Why does it say economists. 90 percent of economists buy the supply side argument. How could they not. Democrats citing economists to back up their arguments is like creationists citing geologists and biologists to back up their arguments. In other words, it is either a lone voice in the wilderness, a crack pot, or a statment taken out of context.

If you had the choice of taxing an economy with a GDP of 100 billion at a rate of thirty five percent a year and got a two percent growth rate, or taxing an economy with a GDP of 100 billion dollars at ten percet a year giving it a four percent growth rate. In the long run which one would give you more revenue.

Still think the Supply side argument is B.S?

Economists almost univerally agree that lowering taxes has spurred growth some, but not nearly enough to make up for the revenue lost through the tax cuts. If "the Supply side argument" is contrary to this, it is bullshit. Economists know as much. The only people touting it are politicians and their ilk.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

He flipped before he flopped:

• BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
  
  BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
  
  BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
  
  BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
  
  BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
  
  BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Today:

• STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”
  
  BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George.

link

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
But if he didn't say that then he means that the tax cut has not brought in more revenue - YET.

Ah, hope. Eternal hope.

It also means what he actually said -- that the tax cuts brought in less revenue than the prior tax rate structure would've brought in over the last 6 years.

A tax cut will always bring a short fall in revenue in the the next year and maybe even for a few years. The question is do they pay for themselves in the long run. If the tax cuts bring in just a little bit of growth then eventually they will pay for themselves.

Careful, Spanky. Bush would like to agree with you more than anyone else, yet even Bush has proclaimed that in the long run, we're all dead.

etft -- t.s.

[Tables R Us]

BigLaw increasingly is recruiting foreign lawyers to become GAs practicing US law. Canadian is becoming a feeder.

National Law Journal

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
BigLaw increasingly is recruiting foreign lawyers to become GAs practicing US law. Canadian is becoming a feeder.

National Law Journal

Aren't there only a few jurisdictions where you can take the bar without a degree from a U.S. law school?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Aren't there only a few jurisdictions where you can take the bar without a degree from a law school?

Michigan?