Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
The economy is generating jobs at a rate significantly below that which we've seen during periods of similar overall GDP growth levels over the past several decades and recoveries. What in your mind has resulted in the weakening of the stimulus -> growth -> jobs causal chain? Is it just some sort of malaise based on the current war on terror which is somehow overcoming the stimulative effects of tax cuts and increased defense and security expenditures?

edited to fix tags.

A couple of things. First, jobs are a lagging indicator, though I believe you are correct that jobs are lagging more than we historically see in times of similar growth. I posted after the 8.1% growth numbers came out that I expected the job numbers to pick up 6 to 9 months later. Jury is still out, but I remain confident. More importantly though are the increases in productivity we have seen over the last 3 years (an all-time high) coupled with an increase in the exportation of jobs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That depends on how they are structured, but in this case I agree with you.

How would you structure them otherwise? Large cash payments (well, question large) didn't work either.

Full capitalization of investments? Maybe, but I think you're just time-shifting there. How many Hummers were sold on new year's eve?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not really, as a percentage of the deficit.

Don't take this as a snarky cite, please. But cite please? I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of changes in tax receipts and spending in the last four years, and the baseline of taxes without the cuts.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How many Hummers were sold on new year's eve?

Yes, we are turning into a service economy.

Oh, wait, you mean the vehicles . . .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yes, we are turning into a service economy.

Oh, wait, you mean the vehicles . . .

Jesus. Are we recycling jokes on this one, too?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Jesus. Are we recycling jokes on this one, too?

"Too"?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Don't take this as a snarky cite, please. But cite please? I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of changes in tax receipts and spending in the last four years, and the baseline of taxes without the cuts.

According to the GOP, on April 15 Americans will get $50 billion in additional refunds or lower payments as a result of Bush's tax cuts. It's unclear if that's in addition to the $14 billion child credit checks that were mailed out. In 2004, tax cuts will reduce Americans' taxes by $176 billion (from the 2002 base, I assume).

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3931

Even in the context of the enormous Bush deficits (approaching $500 billion for 2004, I believe), $176 billion is not insignificant.

Note: This is based on a quick review, and does not appear to include cuts in corporate taxes. But if you want a more thorough research job we'll need to discuss billing arrangements.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
According to the GOP, on April 15 Americans will get $50 billion in additional refunds or lower payments as a result of Bush's tax cuts. It's unclear if that's in addition to the $14 billion child credit checks that were mailed out. In 2004, tax cuts will reduce Americans' taxes by $176 billion (from the 2002 base, I assume).

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3931

Even in the context of the enormous Bush deficits (approaching $500 billion for 2004, I believe), $176 billion is not insignificant.

Note: This is based on a quick review, and does not appear to include cuts in corporate taxes. But if you want a more thorough research job we'll need to discuss billing arrangements.

Evidently I have a lower billing rate.

CBO (pdf file from OMB watch) suggests that a large percentage of the increased deficit since March 2003 is a result of decreased revenue, but that nearly large a share is attributable to increased spending. So everyone's to blame!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
suggests that a large percentage of the increased deficit since March 2003 is a result of decreased revenue, but that nearly large a share is attributable to increased spending. So everyone's to blame!

"everyone's to blame" is a strange conclusion given that only one party is in control of the White House and Congress

I would never suggest that tax cuts rather than spending increases (or failures to make offsetting spending cuts) is the sole reason for deficits. 'Cause that would be silly.

If you quit your job without cutting your expenses, which is to blame for the resulting cash shortfall? The lack of income or the failure to cut costs?

If, on the other hand, you quit your job and then buy a Ferrari on credit, well, welcome to the GOP.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How would you structure them otherwise? Large cash payments (well, question large) didn't work either.

Full capitalization of investments? Maybe, but I think you're just time-shifting there. How many Hummers were sold on new year's eve?

Larger cash payments plus fully implemented tax cuts (rather than phase in).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Evidently I have a lower billing rate.

CBO (pdf file from OMB watch) suggests that a large percentage of the increased deficit since March 2003 is a result of decreased revenue, but that nearly large a share is attributable to increased spending. So everyone's to blame!

Doesn't this raise the age old fight about static scoring?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"everyone's to blame" is a strange conclusion given that only one party is in control of the White House and Congress

Sidd, for once I agree with you. The GOP is solely to blame. My real fight is whether taxes cuts or overspending is the culprit, though I am not opposed to MODEST deficit spending due to the very challenging times we have faced over the last 3 years (9/11, collapse of the capital markets, recession, etc.).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Decent summary of Martha's Guidelines exposure.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Decent summary of Martha's Guidelines exposure.

I'm a bleeding heart even for Martha. I think it's fucked up that the Guidelines provide downward departure for acceptance of responsibility only if you plead. While plea bargaining has always been an enterprise of dubious morality, I think it's shameful that we condition departure from mandatory sentences to a waiver of your right to a trial by your peers.

Of course, I also think it's problematic when a prosecutor waives death penalty in exchange for a guilty verdict for the same reason --- "if you want to avoid jail time/death, you'll just plead and get probation/life" is an extremely negative incentive formally to build into the system.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My real fight is whether taxes cuts or overspending is the culprit, though I am not opposed to MODEST deficit spending due to the very challenging times we have faced over the last 3 years (9/11, collapse of the capital markets, recession, etc.).

I'm not opposed to modest deficit spending in those times either -- but an order of magnitude less than what we've seen.

I just don't understand how you can so firmly insist that the sole cause of deficits is increased spending, not decreased revenues from tax cuts. The figures that Burger and I cited demonstrate quite clearly that this is not the case, as does the experience of the only administration to achieve a budget surplus in recent decades.