Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
Author Message
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-20-2012 10:40 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  
(07-20-2012 10:25 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Wonderful insight, Mary. Please enlighten all of us on how our current President is free of responsibility for the current economy, particularly when having a Democratic majority in both houses for his first two years.

I eagerly await your response.

No problem ODUshitty. From what I have observed it appears that there is some kind of worldwide recession. Hell, Greece was on the verge of going under, but hopefully that will get turned around soon. As for America the President has been able to stabilize large banks and the auto makers and interest rates are still very low, but there is still work to do. I just don't think that you can cut tax revenues and then launch two wars; because as you know ******, wars are expensive. And that was on the last guy.

Launching two wars? Where was Pirate Mary on the morning of September 11?
I seem to recall AQ attacked America.

As for Obama I seem to recall attacks on Col. Kadaffy launched without any Congressional Approval.
07-21-2012 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #22
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-21-2012 09:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bush inherited a surplus.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...st01z1.xls
Look at year 2000.

Ninerfan is right. Any year when the debt increases is a year when you don't have a true surplus. Clinton played some accounting tricks to get to the numbers in the table you reference. But let's not begrudge him too much for that. Those before and after haven't been able to create even the fiction of a surplus by playing the same games.

But the table is interesting for several reasons.

First, note that revenues began to decline, because of the economy, in FY2001, before any of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect. Revenues continued to decline in 2002 (when the first "Bush tax cuts" took effect) and 2003 (when the second round of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect). Those declines were about $100 billion per year. But in 2004, revenues rose by $100 billion, then by $250 billion per in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Revenues in 2005 were higher than they were in 2000, and higher still in 2006 and 2007. So revenues actually increased over the period.

Second, the deficit was fueled primarily by spending increases, not tax cuts. Expenditures basically increased by about $150 billion per year from 2000 to 2006, down to $70 billion in 2007. Then democrats took congress back and expenditures increased by $260 billion in 2008 and $530 billion in 2009.

Third, if you look sat the period the republicans controlled both houses of congress and the presidency (2004-07) you will see that the deficit decreased by almost $100 billion per year in 2005, 2006, and 2007. On that pace, the budget would have been balanced again in 2009. Instead we had a $1.4 trillion deficit that year.

Fourth, The narrative is that the "Bush tax cuts" and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq caused the deficit and debt to explode. The wars cost $100 billion a year. If we totally ignore the economic impacts, it would appear that the first round of tax cuts might have had at most a $100 billion per year impact and the same for the second. That's the impact of ALL the cuts, not just those for the "rich." And that doesn't consider the offsetting positive impacts on the economy, which these numbers suggest were significant. So, looking at it that way, the impact of both the wars and the tax cuts was maybe $200 billion in 2002 and $300 billion per year after that, or roughly $2 trillion over the 8 years of Bush. But the debt increased $5 trillion during the same period, so at most the tax cuts and the wars were 40% of the debt increase, and 20% of the 2009 and subsequent annual deficits. If you really want to blame the deficits and debt on the tax cuts and the wars, you got some 'splainin' to do.
07-21-2012 09:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
So the chart is wrong.

Got it.

Politifact is wrong too then because that's where I got the chart and they rated it "True" to the question Bush inherited a surplus. So I'll write in to them and tell them they are wrong using Niner's logic.

I'm SURE they will rate it false now because you two say so.

Have a good night Owl.
07-21-2012 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #24
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-21-2012 09:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bush inherited a surplus.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...st01z1.xls

Look at year 2000.

That chart doesn't say what you think it does. It's not wrong, you are.

Take a class on how to read a budget. Invite politifact. Both of you need to understand the term "fiscal year" and when the government's starts and ends.

Bush did not inherit a surplus.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2012 10:21 PM by Ninerfan1.)
07-21-2012 10:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-21-2012 10:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So the chart is wrong.
Got it.
Politifact is wrong too then because that's where I got the chart and they rated it "True" to the question Bush inherited a surplus. So I'll write in to them and tell them they are wrong using Niner's logic.
I'm SURE they will rate it false now because you two say so.
Have a good night Owl.

No the chart is not wrong and that is not what I said. So don't misquote me. What I am saying is that chart does not mean exactly what you think it means. The chart is not wrong, you are interpreting it incorrectly. Lots of games get played with numbers, and you don't understand the games being played here. As for Politifact, their analysis is usually right as far as it goes, but it doesn't usually go very far--it tends to be very superficial. You have to go into a lot more depth than Politifact does to comprehend the point that Niner and I are making.

What I said very clearly is that they played some accounting games to get to those numbers. So yes, the stated "surplus" did exist in the reported numbers, but they don't tell the whole story. When the total debt increased, the surplus was not real. Note that I further stated that even though they were playing games. Clinton at least deserves credit because nobody else in recent years has come close enough to play games and show a surplus.

But let me put it this way, and perhaps you will understand. Suppose you run a cash in, cash out business like the government. At the end of each year you are deeper in debt than you were at the start, year after year after year. Are you making money?

Actually I didn't say the chart was wrong at all. It actually has lots of good information. I commented extensively on several trends revealed in the chart. I notice that you didn't comment on any of them. I suppose they don't fit your narrative and you can't come up with some snide and condescending marginalization.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2012 10:46 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
07-21-2012 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #26
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
To be fair I don't think the spin room is full of people willing to go outside of their narrative. I do keep an open mind though. The Laffer curve stuff you posted. I've read up on it and from the things I have read. It's all bunk. I think Laffer or one of his disciples even stated pliticians shouldn't use tax cuts in an argument of raising revenues. I'm even thinking they stated it was foolish to do so. If you want I'll spend the time looking for the quote because I do respect you Owl. I remember reading it in the National Review I think.
07-21-2012 10:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #27
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
If you taxed every American at 100%, how much revenue would you collect?
07-21-2012 10:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
No, Mach, you don't keep an open mind. I do think you at least read different viewpoints, unlike some on here, but I think you read them with a definite bias, at least that's what your comments indicate.

If you're talking about me with the Laffer curve reference, I don't have a clue what you're talking about or what it's relevance to the current conversation might be.
07-21-2012 10:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
Ok explain.

What were you trying to explain here:

First, note that revenues began to decline, because of the economy, in FY2001, before any of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect. Revenues continued to decline in 2002 (when the first "Bush tax cuts" took effect) and 2003 (when the second round of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect). Those declines were about $100 billion per year. But in 2004, revenues rose by $100 billion, then by $250 billion per in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Revenues in 2005 were higher than they were in 2000, and higher still in 2006 and 2007. So revenues actually increased over the period.
07-21-2012 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #30
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
We all have bias, but I will prove to you one area where I have come 180 because of an open mind.


Drum roll please................

Conceal Carry Laws. I think their arguments carry significant weight.
07-21-2012 10:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateMarv Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,508
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 191
I Root For: ECU
Location: Chicago and Memphis
Post: #31
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-21-2012 09:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(07-20-2012 10:40 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  
(07-20-2012 10:25 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Wonderful insight, Mary. Please enlighten all of us on how our current President is free of responsibility for the current economy, particularly when having a Democratic majority in both houses for his first two years.

I eagerly await your response.

No problem ODUshitty. From what I have observed it appears that there is some kind of worldwide recession. Hell, Greece was on the verge of going under, but hopefully that will get turned around soon. As for America the President has been able to stabilize large banks and the auto makers and interest rates are still very low, but there is still work to do. I just don't think that you can cut tax revenues and then launch two wars; because as you know ******, wars are expensive. And that was on the last guy.

Launching two wars? Where was Pirate Mary on the morning of September 11?
I seem to recall AQ attacked America.

As for Obama I seem to recall attacks on Col. Kadaffy launched without any Congressional Approval.

The question is where were you on that morning? And what did Iraq have to do with any of that? The answer: not one thing.

And an attack on Ghadaffi compound was not starting a war with Libya; in fact wasn't that a U.N. operation? I can't recall, but I seem to recall something like that due to Libya being in Civil War and Ghaddafi doing mass killing of dissidents; and I think that America was part of some joint U.N. task force, but maybe I am just misremembering that. Besides that Ghaddafi had engaged in terrorist acts against America before; but as far as I can recall there was no evidence that Saddam Huessein engaged in anything against America, except irritate the Bushes.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2012 11:10 PM by PirateMarv.)
07-21-2012 10:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
firmbizzle Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,447
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 442
I Root For: UF, UCF
Location:
Post: #32
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-21-2012 11:45 AM)Smaug Wrote:  
(07-20-2012 10:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  
(07-20-2012 08:06 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Sooner or later it's got to be Obama's economy, no?

I mean, Grandpa Joe said so.

I never understood this logic. One person broke the economy and the next person who tries to fix it is responsible for breaking it? Why would you trust the people who broke it to fix again?

As opposed to the president's logic?

"It's all Bush's fault".U

3.5 years later, "There isn't a whole lot the president can do to affect the economy."

1. I tend to agree with that second sentiment.

2. Since the president and I agree, he can STFU about Bush now.

It is Bush's fault. He inherited a surplus and went to 2 wars, had a Rx drug benefit, and 2 tax cuts without paying for any of it. When he left office things were spinning out if control.
07-22-2012 01:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-21-2012 10:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok explain.

What were you trying to explain here:

First, note that revenues began to decline, because of the economy, in FY2001, before any of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect. Revenues continued to decline in 2002 (when the first "Bush tax cuts" took effect) and 2003 (when the second round of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect). Those declines were about $100 billion per year. But in 2004, revenues rose by $100 billion, then by $250 billion per in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Revenues in 2005 were higher than they were in 2000, and higher still in 2006 and 2007. So revenues actually increased over the period.

Not really explaining anything, just pointing out the facts. And that those facts don't exactly fit the narrative. What I think fits the facts better is that Bush was so preoccupied with his wars that he let go all fiscal discipline and gave in on ill-advised domestic spending increases that far outweighed the wars in cost, in order to keep down the criticism of the wars. If he really wanted the wars, he should have gone in with overwhelming force and ROE's that would have allowed winning the wars and coming home quickly (2 years or less), while holding the line on domestic expenditures.

Certainly not making any sort of argument that the Laffer curve applied here, or that you can lower tax rates indefinitely and always increase revenues (which I've heard some republicans claim incorrectly). Laffer clearly applies at some point. If you tax at 0% or at 100% you get zero revenue, and there are tax rates between 0% ans 100% at which you get positive revenues. Therefore at some point an increase in tax rates HAS to produce lower revenues. Draw a graph and you will see for yourself that it simply has to be true; the math won't work otherwise. The first Reagan tax cuts probably occurred in the range where Laffer applied, The second Reagan tax cut increased revenues not because rates were lowered, but because the base was broadened. Laffer himself agrees that the Clinton tax increases occurred in range where slight increases in rates (and they were slight) would produce higher revenues. I have never been a fan of the "Bush tax cuts." They were not offset by spending cuts and they were oriented more toward "trickle down" than supply-side growth enhancement. I don't think we were in the range where the Laffer effect applied at the time that the "Bush tax cuts" were passed.
07-22-2012 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
boss man Offline
The Collapse is Imminent
*

Posts: 15,405
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 871
I Root For: MEMPHIS TIGERS
Location: Arlington, TN
Post: #34
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-21-2012 10:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  If you taxed every American at 100%, how much revenue would you collect?

Whatever it is, it is STILL insufficient to appease the wealth redistribution faction on this board and in this country.

Remember, COTUS himself showed his true thinking back in 2008 when he said "there comes a time when I think you have made enough money."
(This post was last modified: 07-22-2012 07:51 AM by boss man.)
07-22-2012 07:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #35
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-22-2012 07:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-21-2012 10:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok explain.

What were you trying to explain here:

First, note that revenues began to decline, because of the economy, in FY2001, before any of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect. Revenues continued to decline in 2002 (when the first "Bush tax cuts" took effect) and 2003 (when the second round of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect). Those declines were about $100 billion per year. But in 2004, revenues rose by $100 billion, then by $250 billion per in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Revenues in 2005 were higher than they were in 2000, and higher still in 2006 and 2007. So revenues actually increased over the period.

Not really explaining anything, just pointing out the facts. And that those facts don't exactly fit the narrative. What I think fits the facts better is that Bush was so preoccupied with his wars that he let go all fiscal discipline and gave in on ill-advised domestic spending increases that far outweighed the wars in cost, in order to keep down the criticism of the wars. If he really wanted the wars, he should have gone in with overwhelming force and ROE's that would have allowed winning the wars and coming home quickly (2 years or less), while holding the line on domestic expenditures.

After the Republicans lost Congress in 2006, the "price" to keep the appropriations to finance military operations for the Global War on Terror was to give the Democrats every cent of spending they demanded.

Pork on Parade
07-22-2012 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateMarv Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,508
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 191
I Root For: ECU
Location: Chicago and Memphis
Post: #36
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
(07-22-2012 10:00 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(07-22-2012 07:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-21-2012 10:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok explain.

What were you trying to explain here:

First, note that revenues began to decline, because of the economy, in FY2001, before any of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect. Revenues continued to decline in 2002 (when the first "Bush tax cuts" took effect) and 2003 (when the second round of the "Bush tax cuts" took effect). Those declines were about $100 billion per year. But in 2004, revenues rose by $100 billion, then by $250 billion per in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Revenues in 2005 were higher than they were in 2000, and higher still in 2006 and 2007. So revenues actually increased over the period.

Not really explaining anything, just pointing out the facts. And that those facts don't exactly fit the narrative. What I think fits the facts better is that Bush was so preoccupied with his wars that he let go all fiscal discipline and gave in on ill-advised domestic spending increases that far outweighed the wars in cost, in order to keep down the criticism of the wars. If he really wanted the wars, he should have gone in with overwhelming force and ROE's that would have allowed winning the wars and coming home quickly (2 years or less), while holding the line on domestic expenditures.

After the Republicans lost Congress in 2006, the "price" to keep the appropriations to finance military operations for the Global War on Terror was to give the Democrats every cent of spending they demanded.

Pork on Parade

Bush was asking Congress for the money to fight the wars, so of course they gave it to him.
07-22-2012 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Vewb1 Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,274
Joined: May 2012
I Root For: Bearcats
Location: Cleves, Ohio
Post: #37
RE: George W. Bush skipping Republican convention
Wonder why George W. is skipping the Conservative convention??? Nobody wants to be seen with him? That's it!!!
07-27-2012 08:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.