I wonder if I made the list?

[TPS]

10,000

[Ghost of BiB]

10,000

497880[/snapback]

 

You are....(shuffling papers)...

 

Number 3,186.

[SilverNRed]

10,000

497880[/snapback]

 

“If you want to know who’s sleeping with whom, who drinks too much or has a fondness for nose candy, this is the place to find it,” says another White House aide. "Karl (Rove) operates under the rule that if you !@#$ with us, we’ll !@#$ you over."

That's amazing considering how the White House has been acting like a bunch of pussies for months now. The President is basically in the fetal position while people like Schumer and Boxer make all sorts of accusations about how we went to war. They can say anything they want and the response is "OK OK, how 'bout we take ethics classes?" "Would you like us to fire Rove?"

 

I wish that list existed and I wish they used it. This administration has the worst PR in the history of the universe. Accusations go unacknowledged and eventually become "common knowledge" in the media.

 

All they have to do to crush Joe Wilson like a bug is read the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings on his little vacation. Why don't they?

 

To quote The Godfather: "You could start by acting like a man!"

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

10,000

497880[/snapback]

 

That's bull sh--, and I can prove it: if that list did exist, it would be a hell of a lot longer than 10,000.

[Mickey]

That's amazing considering how the White House has been acting like a bunch of pussies for months now.  The President is basically in the fetal position while people like Schumer and Boxer make all sorts of accusations about how we went to war.  They can say anything they want and the response is "OK OK, how 'bout we take ethics classes?"  "Would you like us to fire Rove?"

 

I wish that list existed and I wish they used it.  This administration has the worst PR in the history of the universe.  Accusations go unacknowledged and eventually become "common knowledge" in the media. 

 

All they have to do to crush Joe Wilson like a bug is read the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings on his little vacation.  Why don't they?

 

To quote The Godfather: "You could start by acting like a man!"

497908[/snapback]

Yep, that is all they need, just a little better PR. If they did, the economy would be doing great, gas would be cheap, the budget would be balanced, the war in Iraq would be a stunning success and it would be over. They just need catchier jingles.

 

What they need isn't better PR, they need better policies. Maybe having your chief political man, Rove, in charge of policy was not such a hot idea. Just a thought.

[SilverNRed]

Yep, that is all they need, just a little better PR.  If they did, the economy would be doing great,

498095[/snapback]

Unemployment is down to 5%. What was it 10 years ago?

 

gas would be cheap

Gas prices have more to do with demand, namely that in Asia, than who is in the White House.

 

the budget would be balanced

I agree, but then again there isn't a single politician on the national level that I trust to spend tax payer money correctly.

 

the war in Iraq would be a stunning success and it would be over

Because wars are easy. Of course, removing a mass murderer from power and having two major elections in the Arab world don't count as successes, right? I'm sure the men and women coming back from Iraq are happy to hear what a bunch of failures they are.

[Mickey]

Unemployment is down to 5%.  What was it 10 years ago?

 

Gas prices have more to do with demand, namely that in Asia, than who is in the White House.

 

I agree, but then again there isn't a single politician on the national level that I trust to spend tax payer money correctly.

 

Because wars are easy.  Of course, removing a mass murderer from power and having two major elections in the Arab world don't count as successes, right?  I'm sure the men and women coming back from Iraq are happy to hear what a bunch of failures they are.

498108[/snapback]

You are changing the argument to whether or not the President should get credit/blame for these things, thats not my point. The fact is, things are not so hot right now. Budget madness; a long, bloody and divisive struggle in Iraq; a top aide getting indicted; high interest rates; skyrocketing gasoline prices; likely drastic increase in home heating costs; the embarassment over the WMD's not being there; the Miers misstep; Katrina, etc, etc. These are real problems, not PR problems. You aren't going to solve them with better press. What is needed are better policies. Not that they would magically solve all these things, they wouldn't but a President has to do what he can. History's harshest judments have been reserved for Presidents who did nothing.

 

Really, imagine the effect of the President making a public statement along the lines of "My fellow Americans, please don't blame me for these bad things because the truth is, I am powerless to do anything about any of the worst problems faced by our nation." I think such an announcment of Presidential powerlessness would be quickly followed by a drop in poll numbers so severe, Bush would long for the heady, halcyon days when he was in the high 30's.

 

What is he, the "can't-do" President?

[SilverNRed]

You are changing the argument to whether or not the President should get credit/blame for these things, thats not my point.  The fact is, things are not so hot right now.  Budget madness; a long, bloody and divisive struggle in Iraq; a top aide getting indicted; high interest rates; skyrocketing gasoline prices; likely drastic increase in home heating costs; the embarassment over the WMD's not being there; the Miers misstep; Katrina, etc, etc.  These are real problems, not PR problems. 

498512[/snapback]

They're connected. Every US President has tons of problems to deal with all the time but they can do their job a lot more effectively if they project an image that things are going well. It doesn't help if you let your political enemies say anything they want about you, distorting the facts, because staying silent is basically agreeing with them. So it is important for the President to take credit for what he can and deflect blame where he can when the facts support it because he can't do his job effectively as a punching bag.

 

The President should be boasting about what is going right in this country and answering some of his more shrill critics with facts. He isn't supposed to be curled up in the fetal position. Essentially what's happening is people can pin every problem they want on the President and get away with it.

 

I'm not asking him to lie, just get his message out and stand up for what he supposedly stood for when running for re-election.

[Mickey]

They're connected.  Every US President has tons of problems to deal with all the time but they can do their job a lot more effectively if they project an image that things are going well.  It doesn't help if you let your political enemies say anything they want about you, distorting the facts, because staying silent is basically agreeing with them.  So it is important for the President to take credit for what he can and deflect blame where he can when the facts support it because he can't do his job effectively as a punching bag.

 

The President should be boasting about what is going right in this country and answering some of his more shrill critics with facts.  He isn't supposed to be curled up in the fetal position.  Essentially what's happening is people can pin every problem they want on the President and get away with it.

 

I'm not asking him to lie, just get his message out and stand up for what he supposedly stood for when running for re-election.

498555[/snapback]

He has armies of pundits, blogs, friendly press, political operatives and a well oiled political machine to get his message out and they are trying. However, all the talking heads repeating all the talking points in the world aren't going to help with all these problems weighing him down. His PR army hasn't evaporated overnight. That hasn't changed. What has changed are interest rates, indictments, etc, etc. I think he could instantly repair the damage of the indictment of Libby by simply doing what he long ago said he would do, fire anyone involved. Fire Rove and he instantly becomes a man of his word, even when it hurts.

 

Facts are the problem here, not a lack of PR.

[GG]

..... The fact is, things are not so hot right now.  Budget madness; ......  high interest rates; skyrocketing gasoline prices; likely drastic increase in home heating costs;

 

......

 

These are real problems, not PR problems. 

498512[/snapback]

 

Just going to focus on the above points:

 

The economy is not doing great? Unemployment is not lowest among major industrialized nations (other than Japan, and that's not real unemployment)?

 

Budget madness - federal tax revenues have increased well above the growth in GDP since the tax cuts became effective, and have been a big reason for the economic turnaround. Double-talk won't work with some in this crowd, as we understand that a budget deficit is formed by subtracting expenses from revenues. GDP growth has far outpaced industrialized nations. US continues to prop up the global economy.

 

high intetrest rates - compared to what periods? Compared to near 0% to get the economy out of the recessionary crapper, or compared to rates in an average economic cycle? You do realize that the rates are going up, because the Fed wants to slow down the growth of this "not so great" economy, and avoid inflation? The prime rate is still a full 1% below the average prime rate in effect during the booming Clinton economy.

 

skyrocketing gasoline prices; likely drastic increase in home heating costs - yes it is the sitting President's fault that China and India are eating oil like Homer Simpson at a Krispy Kreme, that 25% of refinery capacity got knocked out within 2 weeks, that no new refineries have been built in 25 years, that any increase in capacity is gobbled up by domestic demand (only Republicans drive 10MPG SUVs), that people just love the Sunbelt and its appetite for A/C, that no one wants a gas pipeline or LNG terminal in their backyard/port.

 

Sure you're not upset that the President's PR is going to get in the way of the PR that you've been swallowing?

[SilverNRed]

Facts are the problem here, not a lack of PR.

498628[/snapback]

What GG said.

 

EDIT: Bush has plenty of facts on his side but he doesn't seem willing to use them. His new limp-wristed persona is hurting him among people who previously supported him which is why his approval is in the mid to low 40's right now (and even that isn't unheard of for a President).

[pope zimli]

10,000

497880[/snapback]

10,000 seems pretty modest. Most of the people in this country could be on the list according to most recent polls. Wish the Bush intelligence operation had shown that kind of zest on national security prior to 9/11. Or prior to the war in Iraq.

[Alaska Darin]

History's harshest judments have been reserved for Presidents who did nothing.

498512[/snapback]

Well, except President Clinton.

[SilverNRed]

10,000 seems pretty modest.  Most of the people in this country could be on the list according to most recent polls.  Wish  the Bush intelligence operation had shown that kind of zest on national security prior to 9/11.  Or prior to the war in Iraq.

498882[/snapback]

RCow, is that you?

[TPS]

Just going to focus on the above points:

 

 

Budget madness - federal tax revenues have increased well above the growth in  GDP since the tax cuts became effective, and have been a big reason for the economic turnaround.  Double-talk won't work with some in this crowd, as we understand that a budget deficit is formed by subtracting expenses from revenues.  GDP growth has far outpaced industrialized nations.  US continues to prop up the global economy.

 

498659[/snapback]

 

Hmmm...good old supply-side policy is finally working? What took so long?

In 2000 individual taxes as a % of GDP were 10.3%, that fell to a low of 7% in 2004. Projections for 2005 at about 7.5%. Nominal GDP increaesed by 7% over the past year, with inflation (GDP deflator) up by 4%. This also caused a tax increase on hundreds of thousands of families because they had to pay the AMT.

 

The big move in revenues over the year came from corporate income taxes--42% increase over last year. Much of that is attributed to the one-time reduction in taxes on foreign earnings this year (from 35% to 5.25%). Estimates of repatriation of profits range from $500 billion to $900 bil.

 

Real GDP growth over Bush's 5 years (assuming this year comes in about 4%) has averaged 2.7%, compared to a 3.3% average under Clinton.

 

So far, real GDP is running below historical standards for Bush. As long as the economy continues to grow throughout his remaining term, it'll probably end up about the same as it has for every other president--close to 3%. So, either every president has had equally successful policies, or maybe the economy tends to grow over time at about the same rate, and the real impact from polices is on how that 3% got distributed among the population? As Reagan's budget director David Stockman said, the real idea behind S-S economics was justification to shift income toward their base...

[Ghost of BiB]

Hmmm...good old supply-side policy is finally working?  What took so long?

In 2000 individual taxes as a % of GDP were 10.3%, that fell to a low of 7% in 2004.  Projections for 2005 at about 7.5%.  Nominal GDP increaesed by 7% over the past year, with inflation (GDP deflator) up by 4%.  This also caused a tax increase on hundreds of thousands of families because they had to pay the AMT.

 

The big move in revenues over the year came from corporate income taxes--42% increase over last year.  Much of that is attributed to the one-time reduction in taxes on foreign earnings this year (from 35% to 5.25%).  Estimates of repatriation of profits range from $500 billion to $900 bil. 

 

Real GDP growth over Bush's 5 years (assuming this year comes in about 4%) has averaged 2.7%, compared to a 3.3% average under Clinton.

 

So far, real GDP is running below historical standards for Bush.  As long as the economy continues to grow throughout his remaining term, it'll probably end up about the same as it has for every other president--close to 3%.  So, either every president has had equally successful policies, or maybe the economy tends to grow over time at about the same rate, and the real impact from polices is on how that 3% got distributed among the population?  As Reagan's budget director David Stockman said, the real idea behind S-S economics was justification to shift income toward their base...

498995[/snapback]

 

Number 3,059, now.

[GG]

Hmmm...good old supply-side policy is finally working?  What took so long?

In 2000 individual taxes as a % of GDP were 10.3%, that fell to a low of 7% in 2004.  Projections for 2005 at about 7.5%.  Nominal GDP increaesed by 7% over the past year, with inflation (GDP deflator) up by 4%.  This also caused a tax increase on hundreds of thousands of families because they had to pay the AMT.

 

Nice to pick the year where capital gains taxes were at their all-time peak to try to prove your point. Shouldn't you at least have noted that a big reason for the spike in capital gains receipts was Clinton lowering capital gains taxes in his 2nd term? You know those evil capital gains that only benefit the rich.

 

The big move in revenues over the year came from corporate income taxes--42% increase over last year.  Much of that is attributed to the one-time reduction in taxes on foreign earnings this year (from 35% to 5.25%).  Estimates of repatriation of profits range from $500 billion to $900 bil.

 

Your argument AGAINST supply side is to bring up a case where tax receipts go up by 42% by lowering the tax rate from 35% to 5.25% ?

 

Real GDP growth over Bush's 5 years (assuming this year comes in about 4%) has averaged 2.7%, compared to a 3.3% average under Clinton.

 

So far, real GDP is running below historical standards for Bush.  As long as the economy continues to grow throughout his remaining term, it'll probably end up about the same as it has for every other president--close to 3%.  So, either every president has had equally successful policies, or maybe the economy tends to grow over time at about the same rate, and the real impact from polices is on how that 3% got distributed among the population?

 

Consider that Clinton came in just as the 1990 recession was ending, and left just in time for the 2001 recession to start. Fortuitous timing, if you ask me.

 

Still, if you hail Clinton for generating a pretty healthy period of economic history, and consider that Bush got whacked by the recession, 9/11, and the war, but the economy under his watch is only 0.6% below Clinton's, that's impressive under any definition.

 

And if compare the economic growth rate of Bush's first 4 years, vs any other 4-yr term following a recession, you wouldn't call it below average. He's actually running ahead of Clinton's first 4 years, following the 1990 recession (who had the benefit of Bush 1 greasing the skids)

 

As Reagan's budget director David Stockman said, the real idea behind S-S economics was justification to shift income toward their base...

498995[/snapback]

 

What a travesty. Giving the tax money back to the people that earned the income. Preposterous.

[TPS]

Nice to pick the year where capital gains taxes were at their all-time peak to try to prove your point.  Shouldn't you at least have noted that a big reason for the spike in capital gains receipts was Clinton lowering capital gains taxes in his 2nd term?  You know those evil capital gains that only benefit the rich.

Individual income tax revenues as a % of GDP went up every year under clinton, beginning with 7.7% in 1993. His tax increase generated MORE revenue every year. The cut in K-gains AND the tech boom caused the increase to over 10%. The point I was trying to make is that Bush's tax cuts caused the individual revenues to decline, not increase.

Note to the right: this is an argument against the S-S argument, not in support of Clinton.

 

Your argument AGAINST supply side is to bring up a case where tax receipts go up by 42% by lowering the tax rate from 35% to 5.25% ?

Creating an extreme one-year exemption is hardly a testimonial to S-S theory. If that's their argument, that you can increase revenues in one-year by implementing a radical change, then I'm in your camp. On the other hand, i will make a friendly wager with you that corporate taxes will be significantly lower next year.

 

Consider that Clinton came in just as the 1990 recession was ending, and left just in time for the 2001 recession to start.  Fortuitous timing, if you ask me. 

 

Still, if you hail Clinton for generating a pretty healthy period of economic history, and consider that Bush got whacked by the recession, 9/11, and the war, but the economy under his watch is only 0.6% below Clinton's, that's impressive under any definition.

 

And if compare the economic growth rate of Bush's first 4 years, vs any other 4-yr term following a recession, you wouldn't call it below average.  He's actually running ahead of Clinton's first 4 years, following the 1990 recession (who had the benefit of Bush 1 greasing the skids)

There you go again, Bush is better than Clinton. I'll say it again, the historical trend growth rate in GDP since the end of WWII is about 3%. Every administration since then has averaged close to that. I even said Bush might end up there. You want to make it a Bush good, Clinton bad argument; fine. However, if you are going to try and make bush sound better by saying he's done well despite blah, blah, blah, then include the fact that he had to run $500 billion deficits to keep the economy from sinking. Good sound Keynesian fiscal policy if you ask me...

Those deficits were a consequence of the tax cuts and slower growth. Now that growth has resumed its long run path, we still have $300 billion dollar deficits because of the tax cuts--tax cuts change the structural deficit.

 

What a travesty.  Giving the tax money back to the people that earned the income.  Preposterous.

Yes, I suppose you think it's sound fiscal policy to cut taxes and borrow to pay for your Iraq war.

[GG]

Individual income tax revenues as a % of GDP went up every year under clinton, beginning with 7.7% in 1993.  His tax increase generated MORE revenue every year.  The cut in K-gains AND the tech boom caused the increase to over 10%.  The point I was trying to make is that Bush's tax cuts caused the individual revenues to decline, not increase. 

 

Actually Clinton decreased the capital gains taxes, which had a large role in fueling the tech bubble. If you normalize the capital gains impact from the bubble, the individual share is about 9%.

 

Individual revenues declined, but there's a good chance the economy would not have rebounded as quickly as it did, and we may still be stuck given all the macroeconomic issues I described, above.

 

Creating an extreme one-year exemption is hardly a testimonial to S-S theory. If that's their argument, that you can increase revenues in one-year by implementing a radical change, then I'm in your camp.   On the other hand, i will make a friendly wager with you that corporate taxes will be significantly lower next year.

 

This change had been advocated for years by supply siders, and they were only able to get the one year window.

 

BTW, thanks for helping my point again by admitting that the repatriation taxes would drastically go down when the old rates come back. Would you also be willing to bet that US would collect more repatriated profits' taxes if the rate was reduced to 10% permanently? Isn't that the real goal of tax policy - to maximize revenue, not maximize tax rates to make people feel better that someone is paying a high tax rate?

 

There you go again, Bush is better than Clinton.  I'll say it again, the historical trend growth rate in GDP since the end of WWII is about 3%.  Every administration since then has averaged close to that.  I even said Bush might end up there.  You want to make it a Bush good, Clinton bad argument; fine.  However, if you are going to try and make bush sound better by saying he's done well despite blah, blah, blah, then include the fact that he had to run $500 billion deficits to keep the economy from sinking.  Good sound Keynesian fiscal policy if you ask me...

Those deficits were a consequence of the tax cuts and slower growth.  Now that growth has resumed its long run path, we still have $300 billion dollar deficits because of the tax cuts--tax cuts change the structural deficit.

 

The reason I brought up Clinton is that he's the best example to use, and it was a hinted reference in the initial post that this economy sucks. It sucks compared to what? I could have easily used the comparison to the Carter economy, and would even be more right. Should we run the GDP growth of Bush's first 5 years w/ GDP growth for first 5 years following any recession?

 

Thanks for highlighting a $500 bn deficit, although that level was projected, but never reached, since the economy did better than expected. Since you like using measures of % of GDP, why didn't you include the tidbit that the deficit as % of GDP is not out of whack with previous post-recesionary times. In fact it's pretty darn good when put in that context.

 

The other thing that's ignored is the cost of that debt. Not only is the debt reasonable for post-recession, the interest on it is very low. I wouldn't expect you to admit that nugget.

 

 

Yes, I suppose you think it's sound fiscal policy to cut taxes and borrow to pay for your Iraq war.

499222[/snapback]

 

Again, the argument for supply side is not an argument for runaway spending.

 

It was fun to see Dems painting themselves as the fiscally responsible party - until last week when Reps got them in committee rooms to try to cut the budget.

[Alaska Darin]

Actually Clinton decreased the capital gains taxes, which had a large role in fueling the tech bubble.  If you normalize the capital gains impact from the bubble, the individual share is about 9%. 

 

Individual revenues declined, but there's a good chance the economy would not have rebounded as quickly as it did, and we may still be stuck given all the macroeconomic issues I described, above.

This change had been advocated for years by supply siders, and they were only able to get the one year window. 

 

BTW, thanks for helping my point again by admitting that the repatriation taxes would drastically go down when the old rates come back.  Would you also be willing to bet that US would collect more repatriated profits' taxes if the rate was reduced to 10% permanently?  Isn't that the real goal of tax policy - to maximize revenue, not maximize tax rates to make people feel better that someone is paying a high tax rate?

The reason I brought up Clinton is that he's the best example to use, and it was a hinted reference in the initial post that this economy sucks.  It sucks compared to what?  I could have easily used the comparison to the Carter economy, and would even be more right.  Should we run the GDP growth of Bush's first 5 years w/ GDP growth for first 5 years following any recession?

 

Thanks for highlighting a $500 bn deficit, although that level was projected, but never reached, since the economy did better than expected.  Since you like using measures of % of GDP, why didn't you include the tidbit that the deficit as % of GDP is not out of whack with previous post-recesionary times.  In fact it's pretty darn good when put in that context. 

 

The other thing that's ignored is the cost of that debt.  Not only is the debt reasonable for post-recession, the interest on it is very low.  I wouldn't expect you to admit that nugget.

Again, the argument for supply side is not an argument for runaway spending. 

 

It was fun to see Dems painting themselves as the fiscally responsible party - until last week when Reps got them in committee rooms to try to cut the budget.

499826[/snapback]

Thanks for taking the time so I didn't have to.

 

Damn, TPS. Some things never change. Tax increases fueled the economy? That's damn funny.