Thread: Democratic Strategist, James Carville's firm's poll reports that.....

Originally Posted by Consultant

What you have here, is analysis by a liberal think tank based on estimated data. Do you have some chicken bones or tea leaves we could read?

The analysis is based on data from the CBO. Of course they are estimates because obviously we are not yet in the year 2019. But that's how future projections are done, unless you have a time machine and can go into the future and tell us if they are right or wrong.

Read the whole article here, and why don't you explain where they are wrong?

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Yeah, clearly it's Clinton's fault the economy crashed EIGHT YEARS into Bush's term.

Are we cherry picking economic crises now? Cause I seem to recall one starting right as Clinton's last term ended as well. So wouldn't that put lie to the argument that "clearly it's Bush #1's fault the economy crashed EIGHT YEARS into Clinton's term?" Or in your particular mindset, all economic problems, ever, can be laid at the feet of whichever political party you are in disagreement with?

As I showed a few pages back (which was roundly ignored by the by) - using data from the US Treasury Department directly - it is quite simple to show that there was no surplus during, before, or after Clinton's time in office. It is simply a game of fuzzy numbers. One that you played apparently.

Here they are:

Originally Posted by Alundil

Just out of curiosity (legit question here), How much of the surplus under Clinton's terms was/is attributable to some of the budgetary shifts that his White House made? Things like shifting items that had been federally budgeted onto states' budgets (reduce federal assistance to assisted housing and putting more of that on the municipalities).

I'd also caution that the whole Clinton Surplus discussion is a lost cause. Since no one agrees with anyone's figures on that anyway (a lot like other figures).

* Edit Begins*

It becomes interesting to look at the numbers directly from the Treasury Department and compare the dollar amounts in "Debt Held by Public" as opposed to "Intra-Governmental Holdings" (add those two to get the "Total Public Debt Outstanding").

Originally Posted by Alundil

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...thkey=CK-B5NgO

Those figures came from here

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

I'd paste the numbers into a table here on the site - but the [table] tags do not work anymore

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Absolute horseshit and not even close to reality. Bush and McCain progressive?! Are you nuts? They are neoconservatives directly from the mold of Reagan. Neoconservatism really took hold under Reagan and both Bush's continued it, and McCain would have, too. You know, cutting taxes while increasing spending. There is a reason why the debt began to spiral out of control under Reagan.



You can thank Bush for that.





Yeah, clearly it's Clinton's fault the economy crashed EIGHT YEARS into Bush's term. Makes perfect sense. The one thing he can be faulted for is signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was, unsurprisingly, proposed by Republicans.



Really! You'd think the guy could walk on water or something!

LOL jesus christ why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Did i blame anyone for the deficite for any space in time? But yet i see you found a way to blame bush for the entire deficite. LOL You got he was the only one that ever contributed to it.

I agree with Consultant, Keynesian economics isn't the answer. Been a while since I last studied econ (I higher leveled in it the IB program in highschoo---equivalent to junior level econ, and I've taken a some additional honors econ classes in college.), but a blend of the main schools of economics is the key. In other words, pragmatism is what works. I know it seems obvious given the terminology, but it's the truth. Sticking completely to one school of thought is just fool hardy especially as times change and new types of markets arise (Internet anyone?).

I can agree with that white. I dont seem to recall anyone bitching about tax breaks when they were being handed out. Now all of a sudden its the cause? Get real the economy was nose diving before that and its the reason the breaks were given.

The economy wasn't tanking at the time, as I've stated and the chart shows, the indices were making new highs into 2001,...... New market highs does not equate to "nose diving". And there were plenty of people saying that the tax cut was unneeded, unnecessary and too expensive. But please, in your bottomless amount of wisdom, explain how it makes sense to conduct two wars while cutting taxes, and how that amount of debt isn't damaging to our economic outlook.


450 economists, 10 of the 24 living Nobel Prize Laureates wrote and signed this letter to your guy.....

Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent unemployment from rising. In fact, there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity, corporate scandals, and uncertainty have and will continue to weigh down the economy.
The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.
To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth and jobs in the short term without exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.

Yeah, nobody was saying anything about the tax cuts and their damage......

Didn't Paul O'Neill get fired because he said some of the tax cuts were unnecessary? That couldn't be, because "nobody was bitching about the tax cuts when they were being handed out"......

What was the reason for the tax cuts? Because the economy was nosediving you say? Ahhh, but the economy wasn't "tanking" at the time.

Facing opposition in Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history. Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying "the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money." With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security. By 2003, the economy showed signs of improvement, though job growth remained stagnant.

Sounds to me the main reason Bush wanted to cut taxes is because there was a surplus of funds. He then used "impending" recession as an excuse to stimulate, but apparently it had the opposite outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi..._Bush_tax_cuts