TPS

F'n great post! I'm going to find something to go to this weekend just to honor its sentiments.

I'd always like PJ but never saw them until then. That definitely was one of the best shows I'd ever seen and got me officially addicted...

Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS Win Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers Loss Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots Win Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS Win Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS Win Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS Win Oct. 28 @ New York Jets Loss Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS Win Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins Win Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS Loss Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars Loss Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins Win Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS Win Dec. 16 @ Cleveland BrownsWin Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS Win Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles Loss

As you know, the somewhat original band stopped touring after Pretzel Logic. Fagen toured with different folks after they broke up (after Goucho). Then the reunion tour began in the 1990s. But Steely Dan (Becker and Fagen), with originals like Denny Dias and Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, stopped touring in 1975.

First concert was Steely Dan at Santa Monica Civic Aud 1973. Saw them twice again in 1974, the last real tour year. Favorite(s): Loggins & Messina's very last concert at Honolulu convention center--front row seats, dead center. 1976 or 77, can't remember now. Eagles at Aloha Stadium--I think it was 1979/80? Jimmy Buffet opened, but I missed him because I passed out from the pakalolo and beer. I woke up as the Eagles started their first song--Hotel California. Ahhh...memories.... Pearl Jam at HSBC a few years ago. Current favorite concert band.

You're getting more agreeable all the time...

Philadelphia won't make the playoffs this year; the Bills will. TKO is a great player, but he's got bad karma man. O-fer in Cincinatti; he leaves; they go to playoffs. Goes to Buffalo; O-fer here. Good luck Philly, yer gonna need it. Playoffs here we come!

I guess it's a semantic issue. I interpret the quote as essentially what you said. "The air force is regarded as being more willing" isn't much different than saying "they simply have fewer things to worry about." That's how I read it. They are regarded to be more willing because they CAN bomb the sh-- out of Iran without much damage to themselves. On the other hand, the Army doesn't have the capability to engage Iran, and more than likely Iran will respond by going after our troops in Iraq. I interpret this as one of many attempts by the lifers in the military to put the brakes on the insane policies that Cheney and the neocons are pursuing. There are top brass who disagree with what these idiots want to do, and they are using the media to try and prevent them from from doing it. Which, for military people, is unprecedented. But, hey, I'm only an economist...

The quote: "The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month."

You'll note the dissenters are believed to be army/navy; it said the air force was in favor.

Generals threaten to quit over Iran? The continuing saga between Cheney's neocons and the lifers.

thanks for completing that. As you'll note, it was sent by iTPS given the time....

Ok, as a public service I think I should post once a week on articles about government contracts and corruption. Since the right believes it's ok to spend or waste money on defense, and they don't seem to care that more money is wasted in this area because it "says defense spending in the constitution is ok" or something stupid to that effect, I will try to keep up with all of the articles about abuse of government waste in this area. If I wasn't so busy, I'd try to post an article every day. However, since I don't have time--unlike DCtom (in fact I'm wondering what his job is...?), I'll try to post weekly on the subject. And it falls under the subject heading that government does create wealth for a lot of people.

the eye of the beholder... For example, I don't find the topic "regression toward the mean" interesting; but I do find the topic "how we went to war on lies" interesting.

Interesting look at how this got spun... Pelosi's Plane Problem

Charlie Trotter's, Chicago.

ECO101: Discretionary fiscal policy is actively manipulating government's budget to achieve a particular outcome. Government can either change taxes, change spending, or both. Any change in fiscal policy changes the government's budget situation. Keynesians argue that tax cuts stimulate the economy by causing deficits in the short term. Any discussion about tax cuts is ALSO a discussion about the government's budget. Now that you finally agree that tax cuts impact revenue generation in the short term, maybe we're getting closer. Ignoring the expenditure side to keep it simple for you, assume the tax rate is 20%. If you cut it to 18% (a 10% reduction), and GDP grows by 3%/year, then it will take 3 1/3 years to generate revenues from increased income to compensate for the tax RATE cut, even if expenditures were held constant. So, yes, if you wait long enough, GDP growth will finally generate enough tax REVENUE to balance the budget--or eliminate the DEFICIT. The real argument is whether so-called supply-side tax cuts will increase GDP by greater than its long term trend over time. Which is why I bring in the issue of GDP growth. Of course GDP is cyclical, and it can be greater or less than 3% growth. Tax cuts are usually enacted when the economy is sluggish. Keynesians would argue that the tax cuts will create a stimulus (via the government now running a deficit) to increase economic growth, but they will not change the long run growth trend (Long run growth is a function of labor force growth and productivity increases). From the BEA web site, current personal taxes were $1,296 billion in the first quarter of 2001; personal tax receipts did not exceed that number until the first quarter of 2006. The reason is because GDP growth has not been any greater under Bush (and his tax cuts) than under any other administration (in fact, on average, it's been less than the historical 3% trend). During Bush's first 3 years real GDP grew by an average 1.6%; in the past 3, it's grown by an average of 3.5% (it's averaged 2.6% for the first 6 years). I don't disagree at all. Of course tax policy influences corporate decisions. Much like Microsoft's dividend payment a few years back, which came out of its cash hoard (balance sheet), after the decrease in the tax rate on dividends. But you insinuated my statement about taxes was incorrect--"CFOs would laugh at it." Nothing you said contradicts my statement, or gives any indication why CFOs would not agree with my statement. This offshoot to the discussion was based on your query about whether the rise in corporate profits could be due to the desire to pay out dividends, and I responded that dividend policy doesn't impact profits. Please give me a concrete example of how dividend policy impacts profitability. Because you ignore the growth rate for 1994 and choose to say the taxes impacted 1995, the lower growth year. Absolutely. In fact, they adjusted behavior on the expectation of the tax increase. Or do you believe that high income tax payers aren't forward looking? Try looking up articles from the credit section in the Wall Street Journal for the weeks leading up to and following enactment of the law in August. I am not saying it was the sole factor responsible for falling rates, but it contributed. There was a lot of discussion about how much of an effect it had, and almost all agree it had an effect. You'll also find discussions on Clinton's policy of relying on lower long term rates to stimulate the economy. I'm not sure where you get your data. From the FED's data on interest rates, the spread between the 10-year bond and 6 month T-Bill was about 2.5% for the first half of 1994, then falling to 2% toward the second half. In 1995 the spread started at 1.3%, and ended the year at 0.4%. The early 1994 spread was about the same as it was in 1993 as well. Since the spreads actually decreased in 1995, I guess that would mean Greenspan's policy did have the effect I stated.

KD in CT said: I think you have to be pretty naive to believe people aren't "flat out ripping off the government." Getting rich off Uncle sam A snippet from a very long article:

Can you not read? I did the calculations on the deficit holding spending constant, or as you suggested "normalized at 3%." And i stated "the decline in revenues accounted for 40-60% of the deficits" from 2001-2005; expenditure increases, therefore, are responsible for the remainder. You yourself agreed that tax cuts reduce revenues in the short run. The deficits are a function of increased spending AND decreased revenues--I've always said that. I focus on the revenues because tax cuts affect revenues, not expenditures. I'd hope most people understand that. Your typical response. All you ever do is spew rhetoric, without any facts. Your logic is, "because I say it's so, it's so." Please explain how the dividend decision reduces corporate taxes. Oh, wait, looky here, GG is finally trying to make an argument with data instead of jargon. First, Robert Rubin was one of Clinton's top economic advisors in his first term, before going to Treasury in the second. Through HIS urging Clinton gave up his "Putting People First" program and pursued a deficit reduction plan. You can read about it in Bob Woodward's Agenda, or Robert Riech's Locked in the Cabinet. Nice how you cherry pick your year about the tax hike--the tax hike pushed through in 1993 with impact in 1994, but you choose 1995's growth. Hmmm.... The reason the economy slowed in 1995 is given in your next attempt to use data. Well, let's see, you start with 1994. Now why is Greenspan raising rates in 1994, because of the strong growth in 1994 as a result of lower long term rates in 1993. After the tax increase in 1993 rates came down about another percent--I remember well, because I refinanced my house that September. Obviously we differ on the calendar--you cherry pick your dates. 10-year T-bond: 12/92 6.77% 10/93 5.33% 12/94 7.81% 12/95 5.71% 12/96 6.3% 12/97 5.81% I would hope that you agree markets are "forward looking," yes? That's one of the things Rubin's deficit reduction strategy relied on. Once clinton passed the 1993 tax act, bond markets responded knowing it was contractionary; hence the relatively quick drop in long term rates. Your Greenspan numbers are a reflection of a strong economy in 1994, which was in reaction to the low long rates. Investment expenditures increased by 22.3% in 93Q4, 18.3% in 94Q1, and 25.5% in 94Q2. The strong growth caused long rates to rise again on inflationary expectation. Greenspan's tight monetary policy in 1994 helped slow the economy in 1995. Even my principles students could get that one. By the way, it's interesting that you call 2.5% GDP growth "tanking." It wasn't until Bush's 4th year that GDP exceeded 2.5% from those stimulating tax cuts.

Here's a little example for you.... Uncle

Funny you guys didn't care when it was a republican....

Yes. Try reading YOUR quote directly before "my response" on holding expenditures constant--you actually said assuming expenditures grow by 3% annually. I think maybe you're conflating issues here. There are two decisions by corporations with respect to taxes. First, decisions that affect pre-tax income, like depreciation, amortization, interest expense, etc. Second, there are considerations that impact their investors' taxes after corporate taxes have been paid. The dividend decision affects investor's taxes and has no impact on the profits already taxed at the corporate level. Oh boy! Did I say Rubin was Treasury Secretary? Maybe you should do a little more research.... After the tax increase in 1993 rates came down about another percent--I remember well, because I refinanced my house that September. So the effect that Rubin hoped for from contractionary fiscal policy was a slowdown to bring rates down, which would set the stage for a capital-led recovery--you should appreciate that.

You might want to visit that site on reading comprehension.You clearly don't remember our last go around when I did the numbers holding expenditures constant (see previous post). Also, as stated in the previous post, my point is that government policies don't influence long run growth, but it can influence short run growth. Yes, and you again don't remember that I suggested a cut in the payroll tax as a way to stimulate the economy (see previous post about GDP being cyclical). Thank you for putting words in my mouth as usual. I didn't know profits were a function of "desire to pay out ... dividends"? I always thought they were a function of sales and low costs? Yo MacFly, Clinton raising taxes would be contractionary fiscal policy, cutting deficits, not increasing them. Clinton followed Rubin's recommendation of fiscal discipline so that interest rates would fall, leading to capital-led growth. I won't even respond to the last couple sentences. You can find my posts that contradict the words you're putting in my mouth.

1. The supply side argument is that cutting taxes will lead to higher revenues. I've simply pointed out that each time tax rates are cut, revenues have gone down. That does not rule out the possibility of a "change in behavior" over time. However, the evidence has shown the impact to be insignificant to marginal at best. More taxes are paid when incomes rise (GDP), not when tax rates are cut. Their argument was that tax cuts would lead to higher growth rates--which leads to you next issue. 2. I said the average long run growth rate has been 3% for the past 50 years--of course it's cyclical. If you calculate the real average growth rates of GDP under each president's term, they are all very close to 3%. The implication is that government policies don't seem to have a huge impact on growth--which of course GG accuses me of say government causes growth. 3. In our last go around on this topic I looked at both sides. GG asked me to hold spending constant (or maybe a constant growth) and see what the revenue impact was. The decline in revenues from tax cuts amount to between 40-50% of the deficit as I recall. I focus on the revenue side mostly because that's what their theory focuses on.