The Laffer Curve in real life

Ever since the Reagan administration, supply-side economics has been at the core of Republican economic philosophy. Every GOP candidate, at every level of politics, has to swear allegiance to the theory if he or she hopes to retain credibility with the party base.

In a post yesterday, we took a look at the theory as it illustrated in the Laffer Curve. Now it’s time to look at how the theory has worked in practice, focusing on the two separate experiments with supply-side economics that we’ve run in the past 30 years.

The first began with the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 and ran to 1993. The second began in 2001, with passage of the Bush tax cuts. And in between of course, we had the Clinton administration, which took a very different approach. In 1993, President Clinton pushed a major tax hike into law in order to close the deficit, the very antithesis of supply-side theory. And by the end of his term, the deficit had indeed been eliminated, if only temporarily?

So how do we gauge the effectiveness of supply-side theory in practice? I propose we look at three specific measures:

  • The core claim of supply-siders is that tax cuts spur investment, so we’ll look at growth in private investment;
  • Supply-side theory also claims that tax cuts increase government revenue, so we’ll look at whether that actually occurred;
  • And since growth in gross domestic product is the ultimate aim of any economic policy, we’ll include that in the analysis as well.
  • (Note: All data below have been adjusted to account for inflation.)

    Private investment:

    After the ‘81 Reagan tax cuts, private nonresidential investment over the next seven years grew at an annual rate of 2.8 percent.
    After the ‘93 Clinton tax hike, private investment over the next seven years grew annually at 10.2 percent.
    After the 2001 Bush tax cut, private investment grew annually at 2.7 percent.
    (Data source: CAP/EPI study, Sept. 2008,, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data.)

    Federal revenue:

    From 1981-1993, federal revenue increased by 20.7 percent over 12 years.
    From 1993-2001, federal revenue grew by 46.6 percent over 8 years.
    From 2001-2009, federal revenue decreased by 13.9 percent. (Even if you don’t include the deep recession year of 2009 — you might say we’re invoking the mercy rule — revenue increased just 3.3 percent over the eight years of Bush’s presidency.

    (Source: OMB Historical Table 1.2)

    GDP growth

    From 1981-1993, real GDP grew by an annual average of 2.97 percent.
    From 1993-2001, real GDP grew by an annual average of 3.56 percent.
    From 2001-2009, real GDP grew by an annual average of 1.56 percent.
    (Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis)

    In conclusion, in all three categories central to the claim of supply-side proponents, the economy performed significantly better in the wake of tax increases than it did in the wake of major tax cuts.

    Confronted with such data, the first word out of a supply-sider’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizations for why the economy didn’t perform in real life as supply-side theory dictates it should have. Some of those excuses, such as the fact that the economy under Clinton benefited by the high-tech boom, are legitimate. Others, such as the claim that Bush had to deal with the economic fallout of Sept. 11, are not. There was no major economic fallout in the wake of the terror attacks.

    And the excuses themselves, whether lame or legitimate, further undercut the lofty claims of supply-side advocates. If the economic benefit of major tax cuts is so weak that it can be washed away by larger trends, to the point that you can find no real evidence of it in the data, and if the economic damage of tax increases is so minor that it too can’t be found in the data, then what exactly is this supply-side theory about in the first place?

    I mean, other than to serve as a handy rationalization for perpetual tax cuts.

    367 comments Add your comment

    Guy Incognito

    September 15th, 2010
    1:32 pm

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    1:34 pm

    Theory as applied to reality. I love it.

    Time for a shift from emphasizing tax cuts to reduce the deficit to spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

    Wait…. that’d cost lots more votes than lofty generalizations on tax cuts.

    Nevermind.

    ty webb

    September 15th, 2010
    1:35 pm

    oh alright, you’ve conviced me. Here… let me pay for your healthcare.

    Gale

    September 15th, 2010
    1:38 pm

    My grandmother was right. Don’t buy what you cannot pay for. I can’t wait to hear from the Clinton haters on this. To borrow a line from USinUK, they can have their own opinions, but not their own facts.

    Keep up the good fight!

    September 15th, 2010
    1:38 pm

    Jay…you are making the mistake of assuming their claims and defenses make some sort of logical sense. You really said it all here, with one minor correction: Confronted with such data, the first word out of a supply-sider’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizationsnonsense and wild assertions

    For the logical, its been a great 2-day post and makes complete sense….And now I return you to your But..But…but and other attacks

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    1:39 pm

    The topic of this blog will force the so-called conservatives to defend their position(s) with real data.
    The silent approach will be employed.

    Keep up the good fight!

    September 15th, 2010
    1:40 pm

    Oh dang..rationalizations was suppose to be struck out…if only I could type today.

    Guy Incognito

    September 15th, 2010
    1:40 pm

    “Some of those excuses, such as the fact that the economy under Clinton benefited by the high-tech boom, are legitimate.”

    Wow, I’m not sure if I ever heard a lib admit that.

    Matti

    September 15th, 2010
    1:45 pm

    You don’t have to validate your economic theories with facts if you have an (R) by your name. The faithful will believe you no matter what you tell them. Wooooo! The Magic R! “It’s good. It’s honest.” Even when it’s not.

    Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

    September 15th, 2010
    1:47 pm

    Well, you forgot one thing and it’s the most important supply side argument. See, the reason federal income never grew much after My President’s tax cuts is because the Revenue Fairy got in a big car crash and was in the hospitle in a coma for 8 years.

    But I sure did like that tax cut. It saved me right near 100 bucks a year.

    The Boner's Tan Line

    September 15th, 2010
    1:47 pm

    The Boner knows all of this is lies, pure lies! The Boner will have you investigated thoroughly. You’ll not get away with this, Jay Bookman. Interrupting valuable tanning and touching time for such drivel!

    DebbieDoRight

    September 15th, 2010
    1:48 pm

    I mean, other than to serve as a handy rationalization for perpetual tax cuts.

    You’ve answered your own question……..

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    1:49 pm

    Just to show the cons a little more mercy, I would conclude that you did not prove or dis-prove supply-side economics with your analysis. What you did is provide sufficient reason to believe that the ever-sought-after and ever-so-elusive “Point A”, from your prior post on the laffer curve, is farther to the right than we have yet ventured, in at least the last 30-plus years.

    Guy Incognito

    September 15th, 2010
    1:50 pm

    Ok, if not tax (and SPENDING CUTS) to spur foriegn investment, what is the key?

    Independent

    September 15th, 2010
    1:51 pm

    Jay you forgot a required statistic along with the tax rates that will impact GDP growth. How about a federal spending amount overlapped with those same years?

    DebbieDoRight

    September 15th, 2010
    1:51 pm

    Redneck – I have it on good authority that the Revenue Fairy was NOT in a coma at any hospital! He was in the bathroom stall next to [insert Republican name here]; practising his “wide stance” on economic policy. :wink:

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    1:54 pm

    Ok, if not tax (and SPENDING CUTS) to spur foriegn investment, what is the key?

    Simple. We must import cheap Chinese workers. For some reason, the cons are opposed to letting the cheap labor simply walk here from Mexico. Only imports from overseas will do.

    EL

    September 15th, 2010
    1:54 pm

    I feel many insults, because that’s all the Repubs have, coming on…Get ready!

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    1:55 pm

    only one issue, the “but” uttered by neo-cons might also be followed with the words; illegal immigrant, birth certificate, socialist, or stimulus package. as I said yesterday, the housing bubble itself was based on the very same “principles” as the Laffer Curver, basically that if one borrows money (assumes debt), the debt will likely show up on somebody else’s balance sheet as an asset (income or revenue). in addition, the “mythical money” being borrowed and spent in the form of home equity loans was what was inflating the bubble, as opposed to the actual appreciation of assets (homes). the only difference (hence the infamous “deficits don’t matter”) is; the folks in DC don’t acknowledge the prospect of foreclosure, and are not beholden to credit scores or credit limits when they need to borrow additional funds. did not Bush 41 refer to this as “Voodoo Economics”?

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    1:57 pm

    How about a federal spending amount overlapped with those same years?

    We spent more than we collected during Republican administrations and less during Democrat administrations.

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    1:57 pm

    Any idea how this fits in to all that?

    “Call them “the Obama tax cuts for the middle class.”

    Top Democratic leaders in the House are discussing using that phrase to rebrand President Obama’s proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_obama_tax_cuts_for_the_mid.html

    Keep up the good fight!

    September 15th, 2010
    2:01 pm

    Debbie…the Revenue Fairy denies any term or connotation that might even suggest something other than complete Dudley DooRight Canadian Mounty Lumberjack manliness……until such time that the Revenue Fairy is no longer a member of Republican iconic fiction…..

    DebbieDoRight

    September 15th, 2010
    2:04 pm

    Keep up the good fight – too funny!!!

    Guy Incognito

    September 15th, 2010
    2:04 pm

    “Simple. We must import cheap Chinese workers.”

    Awesome…..I LOVE Chinese food!

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    2:05 pm

    This reminds me of the playground basketball challenge called H-O-R-S-E.
    If you make a shot, your competitors must make the same shot or get a letter up to E with E being the explusion letter. Those that lose are considered the horse’s rear.

    The so-called conservatives have run out of excuses.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    2:07 pm

    !993-2001…Clinton was coasting on Reagen’s successful administration. We had the peace dividend and a long period of stability.

    2001-2009…we needed to get out of the recession which began in 2000. This country in 09-11-01 experienced its worst attack in our history that shut the economy down and came close to producing a major prolonged crises. Hurricane Kattrina in 05 was the costliest natural disaster in our nations history. All of this within 5 years. To trivialize these events and their impact would be an attempt to re-write history.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    2:08 pm

    Any idea how this fits in to all that?

    Beyond mere political messaging, it doesn’t, really. However, given that Atrios has been complaining about this tone-deaf messaging for at least the better part of a month, I’m glad to see that the Dem establishment are finally at least getting this much right.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    2:08 pm

    Clinton was coasting on Reagen’s successful administration.

    …AND Bush’s? really?

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    2:09 pm

    Jackie

    So why do Democrats support keeping tax cuts in place during a time of recession, high unemployment and high deficits?

    andygrd

    September 15th, 2010
    2:09 pm

    Off topic, buttttttttttttttttttttt

    U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he wants to attach an amendment to a defense policy bill that would help young people in the United States illegally become legal U.S. residents.

    The Nevada Democrat said at a Capitol news conference
    that the legislation known as the DREAM Act is long overdue. He would not say whether he has the votes for the amendment. The act would allow young people who attend college or join the military to become legal U.S. residents.

    Of course attach it to a defense bill,,,, and you guys talk about Repubs pandering for votes……..

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    2:10 pm

    Hi there, sfd

    Ain’t politics grand?

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    2:11 pm

    @Paul

    The Dems that support tax cuts for lower and middle-class taxpayers are doing what is right. Those that support tax cuts for the top 2% wage earners are mere political cowards!

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    2:13 pm

    Ain’t politics grand?

    Well, it’s always there, even if you’re away from it for a few days, as I’ve been. I’ll say that much for it.

    Deep Throat, Part Deux

    September 15th, 2010
    2:14 pm

    I think Obama could buy a lot more votes with an offering of a tax cut for 97 to 98 percent of US households than he could if he offered only a tax cut for the top 2 to 3 percent of money hoarders. Then again, that 2 to 3 percent could also buy all those other votes too, if they were not so greedy. So, in the end, there can only be one. Will it be the generous Obama or the greedy few who win control over our fair nation’s true wealth. Are the Kochs willing to part with enough cash to have their way with us. It would take a miracle. Something shocking… awesome. It would take something like turning Hillary to the dark side and giving her a deep raspy voice emanating from a black helmet. That would do it. Hillary/Palin 2012. Stay tuned.

    B. Morris

    September 15th, 2010
    2:15 pm

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    2:16 pm

    David Stockman, Budget Director of the Reagan Administration has publicly stated the trickle-down economic concept was flawed.

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/another-failed-president.html

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    2:17 pm

    What this really proves is that the point on the Laffer curve is correct, but since economic conditions change constantly the tax rates need to as well. God help us if politicians ever start trying that little bit of tea leaf reading.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Since we have a two-track problem with comments here I did a little poking around. It appears Wordpress employees two sets of filters. One that places comments in moderation and another that blacklists the comment. It sure would be nice if they would share the blacklist file with us so we’d know when a comment was just going to vanish into oblivion, never to be seen or heard from again.

    http://codex.wordpress.org/Settings_Discussion_SubPanel

    Keep up the good fight!

    September 15th, 2010
    2:17 pm

    Sure Del…and of course in 2009 is all was right as of January 20. AND then Obama went and screwed up everything. ….. Be sure that no one re-writes that history! Enjoy a slurpee!

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    2:22 pm

    Jackie

    I wasn’t aware the Laffer Curve theory differentiated between income classes when it came to tax cuts. I thought it was, a tax cut is a tax cut.

    So, are you putting forth the idea the Laffer Curve has merit when applied to certain income groups?

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    2:23 pm

    Smart money says that the extension will ultimately apply for every tax payer. The administration is on the losing end and are glad they’re on the losing end. This way they can save face with their base, blaming Republicans and renegade Democrats, while protecting their rear from the potential economic impact on small business job creators through increased taxes.

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    2:24 pm

    Jackie 2:16

    If you’ve never read it, Stockman’s book is a good read.

    If my memory’s correct, he asserted what got us into trouble was not just the tax cuts, but not following them with spending cuts.

    Soothsayer

    September 15th, 2010
    2:34 pm

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    2:35 pm

    Headline: The new GOP makes Bush look liberal.

    Well, duh! The cons on here have been telling us for some time now that Bush was a liberal once he went and asked for that 700 billion just for a TARP. I mean, Really! That also explains why the cons on here are so quick to tell us that Obama is just like Bush. They’re both liberals.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    2:41 pm

    Soothsayer,

    Are you truther?

    jconservative

    September 15th, 2010
    2:50 pm

    Good two day point Jay.

    As I said yesterday and will repeat, when government is forced to borrow money it takes money out of the market place that could be used in investing in true capitalism. In a more vernacular phrase, government just sucks the cash out of the marketplace when it is on a big borrowing binge.

    And government has been on a big borrowing binge since this experiment began in January 1981.

    And credit does need to be given to Clinton(D)for signing the 3 “balanced budgets” and for the John Kasich(R) led congress for passing the bills. Kasich showed us how to do this sanely, but when he left we “forgot?”.

    Since Eisenhower no Republican president has signed a balanced budget.
    That statement in itself should be a sobering thought to all who claim to be Republican.

    But I am not here just to bash Republicans. Lets give credit to George H W Bush for his 1990 tax increase for also helping to lessen the ravages of deficit spending started by Reagan.

    And lastly, VP Cheney in 11/02 to Bush Treas. Sec. Paul O’Neill – “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter…”

    Obviously Obama overheard every word Cheney said about deficits.

    Anyhow, the legacy of 30 years of “voodoo economics”, per Bush 41, is a national debt of $13.4 Trillion as of 9/13/2010.

    And Mitch McConnell(R)yesterday introduced the “Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2010″ which would extend all the Bush tax cuts through FY 2011.

    McConnell did NOT introduce a bill to reduced any spending to replace the loss of revenue from his bill. I guess McConnell also heard every word VP Cheney said about deficits. Apparently he thinks they are great as he is planning to enlarge the one we now planning for FY 2011.

    As Yogi said “Its ‘1981′ all over again!”

    Sorry.

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    2:55 pm

    Del, “successful administration”? Reagan left office (actually left us) with a record national debt. Sure we “felt good” (bombed Libya, conquered Grenada, and of course he dodged a bullet with the Iran -Contra mess). so, if you want to argue Reagan succeeded in bosting America’s emotional well-being (”pride cometh before the fall”), but financially speaking we were not “better off than we were in 1980″.

    jconservative

    September 15th, 2010
    2:56 pm

    Paul at 2:24 – “If you’ve never read it, Stockman’s book is a good read.
    If my memory’s correct, he asserted what got us into trouble was not just the tax cuts, but not following them with spending cuts.”

    That is my memory of his remarks also.

    And as I stated in an earlier post, the last Republican president to sign a balanced budget was Eisenhower.

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    2:57 pm

    @Paul

    The Lafler curve was an economic concept that was designed to show the relationship of government revenue raised by taxes and all other revenue sources.

    If you think about it, the concept was used to demonstrate that governent should lower taxes because more revenue was generated by the growth of disposable income, of which poor and middle-income people had very little of.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

    RJ

    September 15th, 2010
    3:00 pm

    Sorry, Jay but this entire post is based on a false premise. The Laffer Curve is not part of supply-side theory. It’s a completely seperate factual thing that illustrates the relationship between marginal tax rates and tax revenue.

    (Meanwhile, I’ll save the supply siders the effort. Supply side economics explains the GDP boost in the Clinton administration with the effect of higher productivity.)

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    3:02 pm

    the Laffer Curve was a political card trick, which played on the belief that Republicans were fiscally responsible (and as jcon points out, they WERE – from 1953 – 1961).

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    3:04 pm

    Paleo, Sorry you can’t rewrite presidential history to suit your political ideology. The left, however, attempts to do so all the time with Ronald Reagan’s precisely because his was successful and in stark contrast to Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency.

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    3:04 pm

    Since the economy was so much better for all of us under Bill Clinton than it was under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43, I vote we raise taxes on everyone to Clinton-era levels. Who’s with me?

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    3:10 pm

    @Wahoo

    Along with restoring Clinton-era tax rates, if you would restore Clinton era budget policies and PAYGO rules, that would be something I could support.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    3:14 pm

    Since the economy was so much better for all of us under Bill Clinton than it was under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43, I vote we raise taxes on everyone to Clinton-era levels. Who’s with me?

    I’ve no problem with that, actually, given that the marginal tax rates on middle and low incomes weren’t onerous.

    Ron

    September 15th, 2010
    3:17 pm

    We should not forget that Clinton cut taxes for the sale of a primary residence, required people on unemployment to look for a job amoung, cut government spending (military) and several other items which reduced taxes even as the marginal rates was increased.

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    3:19 pm

    Del, this what happens when you use words like “successful administration” and “failed presidency” (your biased, ideological opinion). the national debt at the end of the Carter administration was $1.7 trillion and change. Eight years later, when Reagan flipped the keyes to GHW Bush the national debt was in excess of $3.7 trillion. ergo, tax cuts or not (Laffer curve or not), the national debt more than doubled as a result of the “conservative” fiscal policies of St. Ronald the Actor. you would do well to learn to distinguish between words and numbers (words are the foundation of lies, and numbers NEVER lie). for example, the national debt to GDP ratio actually decreased 3.3% during the “failed” Carter years. By the time “Dutch” left office the national debt had increased 9.3%. I have given St. Ronnie credit for his successes (ridding the island of Grenada of Cuban construction workers, trading arms for hostages and using the funds in his failed attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinista government, which itself was voted out of office in the 90’s). no my friend, I am not of the left, nor am I beholden to any partisan ideology. this isn’t a left/right issue it is a red/black issue.

    Fly-on-the-wall

    September 15th, 2010
    3:22 pm

    Del, I thought when Clinton came into office there was an election phrase “It’s the economy stupid”. That’s because we were in the middle of yet another Republican induced recession (8 years of Ray-gun & 4 years of GHW Bush).

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    3:22 pm

    Of course, Jackie. Who, in this political and economic climate, wouldn’t support a balanced budget? I mean, aside from the President? Raising taxes is one thing – frankly that’s the easy part. Balancing the budget is an entirely different thing, and I see no indication from DC (either party, really) that they have any itching to balance the budget and pay as you go. That would take far more political will than what I believe is contained in Washington. As someone with a very high income, if you told me you were going to raise my taxes but cut the spending and balance the budget, and actually provided me the slightest inclination to you were serious about cutting spending, I’d support raising taxes. But personally, I won’t support raising taxes of any kind on anyone until there is some degree of fiscal discipline restored within the ranks of our “leadership”.

    barking frog

    September 15th, 2010
    3:23 pm

    Supply side economics is based on the belief that if

    build it they will buy it. This is fundamental to the auto

    industry. How has that worked for them.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    3:25 pm

    Reagan had to get the country out of the Carter mess. Brought Soviet Russia down and produced the peace dividend that allowed Bubba to coast through two terms In the tranquill 90’s. Of course Bubba and wife Hillary tried to screw it up during their first term, however, it brought in a Republican congress and forced Bubba to shift center. Afterwords Bubba contented himself chasing Monica, while the country purred along very nicely without him, thankfully, having much to do.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    3:28 pm

    AmVet:

    B the good news was that it a godsend for the blossoming oligarchy and the plutocrats who now control most facets of American lives.

    B???

    Got Bruno on your mind? Have a deep, down yearning, do ‘ya?

    schnirt

    Abrazos

    September 15th, 2010
    3:28 pm

    “Sorry you can’t rewrite presidential history to suit your political ideology.”

    This, after the same poster wrote “1993-2001…Clinton was coasting on Reagen’s [sic]successful administration. We had the peace dividend and a long period of stability.” I’m pretty sure there was somebody in between the two, say GW Bush, 1988-1992.

    Wow, THAT’S some SERIOUS rewriting of presidential history to suit your political ideology. Vaporizing 4 years is quite a feat!

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    3:29 pm

    Del, and if you click the ruby slippers three times and chant “there’s no place like home” you’ll be in Kansas in no time. OK, “uncle” – Carter left the US in a “mess”. Reagan left a bigger mess; that’s all I am saying. of course, through WORDS Reagan called it prosperity, but debt is debt.

    Fly-on-the-wall

    September 15th, 2010
    3:29 pm

    Del, sorry but you’re just trying to change the subject. My feelings about Clinton is that he was a terrible person for not keeping his zipper closed but a good President because he knew how to negotiate and compromise which is something that has been lost on the republican side.

    barking frog

    September 15th, 2010
    3:29 pm

    Del 3:25 Are you saying that Monica was good for the economy?

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    3:31 pm

    stands for decibels,

    In fairness to you, my earlier comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. To be clear, I don’t think that Washington has even the political will to raise taxes on everyone to Clinton-era rates, despite our current budgetary situation.

    Soothsayer

    September 15th, 2010
    3:31 pm

    “Are you truther?”

    1) I do not believe that the World Trade Center Towers were struck by terrorists

    2) I do not believe that the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 collapsed as a result of being struck by airplanes or any other object

    3) I believe that both World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 collapsed due to controlled demolitions placed in these buildings in advance of September 11

    4) I believe that these controlled demolitions were conducted by the federal government to provide a “Pearl Harbor” to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

    5) I believe in the fact that, in all of recorded history prior to, and after, September 11, 2001, no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire

    6) And, finally, I believe that thousands of innocent civilians and fire department personnel were murdered by our federal government for effect

    Can I make it any plainer than that?

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    3:31 pm

    What the hell is that on the back of my leg???

    Must be one of the Albatross Sisters.

    Reagan left a bigger mess…

    No doubt. Ronnie

    Fly-on-the-wall

    September 15th, 2010
    3:32 pm

    Barking Frog – of course it was great for the economy. Look at how much tax money the Republican Congress spend on chasing down every possible story about Clinton.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    3:32 pm

    Lets give credit to George H W Bush for his 1990 tax increase for also helping to lessen the ravages of deficit spending started by Reagan.

    Also fine with me. In case anyone’s forgotten just what those tax increases entailed, here’s the wiki version:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1990

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    3:32 pm

    EXPLODED the size, scope, interference and COST of government all the while blubbering out of the other side of his mouth about small government.

    And the rubes fell for it all, hook, line an disnker…

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    3:33 pm

    To be clear, I don’t think that Washington has even the political will to raise taxes on everyone to Clinton-era rates, despite our current budgetary situation.

    Probably not any time soon, no.

    barking frog

    September 15th, 2010
    3:35 pm

    Wahoo 3:31 In fairness to you, my earlier comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. To be clear, I don’t think that Washington has even the political will to raise taxes on everyone to Clinton-era rates, despite our current budgetary situation.
    ————————————————————–
    You are aware that when the tax cuts expire this will happen.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    3:35 pm

    AmVet:

    Like I told Midori….What the hell is that on the back of my leg???

    That ^^^ phrase is overused and, quite frankly…..just plain silly.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    3:35 pm

    Barking Frog, Monica may have been good for the country indirectly. Kept Bill occupied so he couldn’t do anything other than what the Republican Congress told him to do.

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    3:37 pm

    @Wahoo

    If we take your premise to the next level, how does the Congress balance the budget? What is it you would cut to achieve this objective?

    It is getting to the point that our GDP will consist of Health Care, Social Security and Defense spending in as few as 10 years. Secondly, to use an example of how our budgets are structured, how many of us have a personal budget that is without debt?

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    3:38 pm

    You are aware that when the tax cuts expire this will happen.

    Of course, barking frog. But that isn’t the debate that’s raging in Washington right now. I am sure you are aware that almost the entire discussion on taxes relates to whether we extend the tax cuts for 98% of income earners, or everyone. If our leaders really had the courage of their convictions, we wouldn’t be talking about extending the tax cuts for anyone.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    3:39 pm

    Soothsayer,

    Ah! so you are a truther. Thank you for your admission. Do we have any other truthers with us here this afternoon?

    barking frog

    September 15th, 2010
    3:41 pm

    Fly(lunch)
    Del, You think maybe an intern or two might help now?

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    3:43 pm

    What the hell is that on the back of my leg? Again!

    Trickle-down was a colossal failure. Anybody who still believes it was not voodoo economics is certifiable. The middle class has gotten damn near destroyed by it. The gap between the haves and have nots in America exceeds that of even the Great Depression. CEO pay went up hundreds of percent in one decade while the working American’s “grew” by a mind-boggling 4%. Not even enough to keep up with inflation for one year, much less ten.

    The answer is there is too much power and too much wealth in too few hands and the few control our government and the few create the problems and the injustices for the many and have less and less interest in doing anything about it because they can get away with it. Ralph Nader 1996

    And not ONE of you trickle-downers or Reagan/Newt/Bush apologoists will dare try to countermand this claim with any factual information…

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    3:43 pm

    Wahoo,

    Do you think we will extend tax cuts for only the 98% or do think the tax cuts will end up being extended for everyone?

    Midori

    September 15th, 2010
    3:46 pm

    Man,

    I want some of what Del’s smoking.

    you have to be on embalming fluid just to TYPE that nonsense……

    barking frog

    September 15th, 2010
    3:46 pm

    Wahoo 3:38 The tax cuts will likely expire. The debate is

    about who will take the blame.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    3:48 pm

    Barking Frog, Nah…you’d have to round up too many, some up for Polosi, Reid, Biden and many others in Congress. Probably even for Joe Gibbs to ease his job anxiety.

    Fly-on-the-wall

    September 15th, 2010
    3:48 pm

    SFD – that’s what is sad. One on is willing to step up and be a true LEADER in Congress anymore. They get shot down too quickly in the media before they even have a chance to discuss the merits of a change. I feel the Dems have a few that want to try but the fear of losing is greater than the fear of success while the Repubs cannot move away from the hard line stance their party has on everything. I’m afraid that nothing will get done because no Repub can reach out to the Dems without being cast out.

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    3:50 pm

    @Del

    If nothing else, I must give you enormous credit for showing up for this discussion. It seems your other cohorts do not have enough nerve to take their pounding. You have gained my respect for your ability to continue to the end. Maybe that is some of that USMC training that is coming out. Is it true that Marines never retreat just make strategic withdrawls?

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    3:50 pm

    Jackie:

    “What is it you would cut to achieve this objective?”

    Lots of things, ranging from defense to entitlement programs. IMO the government does a lot of things that it has no business doing or is ill-equipped to do. Your question deserves a far more lengthy response than I am willing to invest at the moment since I have previously posted my thoughts on these blogs before.

    “It is getting to the point that our GDP will consist of Health Care, Social Security and Defense spending in as few as 10 years.”

    I think you mean government outlays, not GDP. As I’ve stated before, our entitlement programs require significant expenditures, and are only expected to increase in the future. Unless you are willing to assume wildly optimsitic GDP growth in the future, the tens of trilions of unfunded liabilities associated with SS and Medicare must be dealt with and it will be a sobering exercise to do so.

    Secondly, to use an example of how our budgets are structured, how many of us have a personal budget that is without debt?

    Most of us utilize debt in some form. There’s nothing wrong with borrowing money if you have the means to pay it back, with interest, over time. Our Federal government continues to run deficits and increase its borrowings each year. No individual can do this forever, and as we saw with Europe this spring, eventually the bond market sours on even sovereign nations.

    Midori

    September 15th, 2010
    3:52 pm

    oops – forgot to add: Alrighty din!!!

    Fly-on-the-wall

    September 15th, 2010
    3:52 pm

    Here’s what is so sad. We’re right back where we were 100 years ago with the big corporations (families 100 yrs ago) controlling everything including the news channels. The big corps have done their best to get us back to that environment again.

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    3:53 pm

    How come the little Bush, GeeWhiz, did not learn anything from his daddy about voodoo economics.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    3:54 pm

    You only exist to irritate.

    May as well.

    In all the years I’ve been here no one’s mind has been changed. I’ve decided that having fun is more important.

    And your purpose….?

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    3:55 pm

    Wahoo 3:38 The tax cuts will likely expire.

    You might be right, barking frog. But I doubt it.

    Del, my bet is extending the tax cuts for 98%. I think the Dems are coming to the conclusion that they should put forth a proposal for extending the tax cuts for all but the top 2%, and force the GOP to go along with it or else paint themselves as holding middle class tax cuts hostage for the benefit of the evil, wealthy 2%. Obviously this just my guess.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    3:56 pm

    Hey Jackie,

    Semper Fi. Thanks but I’ve been hit with worse. You too probably. Retreats verses strategic withdrawals, don’t know about that, it was before my time, you’d have to ask the survivors of the Cho Son Reservoir about that. If Chesty was still around I’m sure he would have been glad to fill you in.

    JohnnyReb

    September 15th, 2010
    3:57 pm

    Jay, you obviously have done research on this; I have not. And, someone may have posted this already, but Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress also cut government spending. That is a big piece you failed to mention. Plus, the economy is like a supertanker; the response lags the input. I suppose there is no chance Clinton benefited from what Reagan put in place? Lastly, the Obama agenda has scared the hell out of anyone in business. That alone, even excluding the trillion he spent with no return, has choked the economy.

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    3:57 pm

    @Wahoo

    You are correct as I should have stated budgetary items will consist of those items instead of GDP.
    Now, you indicated there are lots of things that you would cut from the Federal budget; could you name your top 3?

    As for our personal budgets, many folks get into economic difficulties because of diminished employment.

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    3:58 pm

    Del,

    Joe Gibbs – NFL Hall of Fame Coach and NASCAR team owner
    Robert Gibbs – Obama Press Secretary

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    3:59 pm

    @Del

    Salute!!!

    Jefferson

    September 15th, 2010
    4:00 pm

    If the duckheads won’t vote, let them expire. People need to quit acting stupid.

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:00 pm

    Fly-on-the-wall, regarding your correct observation that “the big corporations (families 100 yrs ago) controlling everything including the news channels.”

    It is called the corporatization of America.

    I’m fairly certain that the modern day oracles like Rush, Sean and Ann must daily extol their listeners about the mooches in American society.

    Yet they are mooching off Uncle Sam by using the airwaves that belong to *we the people* without even paying rent for doing so.

    A nice racket they have…

    Oh and for you liberal loathers, a salient quote from a well-known right-winger:

    Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. ~Benito Mussolini

    JohnnyReb

    September 15th, 2010
    4:01 pm

    paleo-neo-Carlinist – that’s Robert Fibbs – Obama Press Secretary.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    4:02 pm

    paleo,

    Correction on my last, Robert Gibbs Press Secretary. Thank you

    Moderate Line

    September 15th, 2010
    4:02 pm

    Confronted with such data, the first word out of a supply-sider’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizations for why the economy didn’t perform in real life as supply-side theory dictates it should have.
    ++++++++++++
    “But….” Could I not make the same statement about stimulus spending. The problem with stimulus spending and tax cuts is there is no way to control for outside factors other than stimulus spending and tax cuts. What the data presented shows is the most important thing in growing revenue is a growing economy. How to achieve a growing economy is open for debate.

    For example, the first year of Bill Clinton taking over the economy grew at 5.1% while the first year of Bush was 3.4%. Clearly Clinton had a healthier economy. By 2004 and 2005 the economy under Bush was growing at 6.4% plus rate higher than any year under Clinton. How do you control for such factors? Both supporters of stimulus spending and tax cuts over emphasize the facts that support them and deemphasize or dismiss the facts do not.

    The only thing I can conclude from this is that tax cuts will not prevent a collapse of the economy and tax increase will not precipitate an economic collapse.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    4:03 pm

    Jackie,

    Salute back to you.

    Moderate Line

    September 15th, 2010
    4:04 pm

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    4:05 pm

    Jackie,

    “Now, you indicated there are lots of things that you would cut from the Federal budget; could you name your top 3?”

    I will be brief since I actually have some things to get done this afternoon.
    Department of Defense – we don’t need to fight two wars anymore
    Social Security – probably should be needs based to some degree and IMO there should definitely be an increase in the age at which one can draw full benefits.
    Medicare – repeal or phase out Part D. But do something with it quickly because it’s a fiscal disaster of epic proportions.

    “As for our personal budgets, many folks get into economic difficulties because of diminished employment.”

    No doubt. But this is why it is incumbent upon each of us to spend within our means and save money for a rainy day. Sorry to say it, but personal liberty comes with responsibility. One of my biggest laments about the educational system in our country is the lack of personal finance teaching in school.

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    4:05 pm

    forget about Robert Gibbs or Joe Gibbs, did anyone see that Bush forfeited his 2005 Heisman Trophy? Didn’t read the whole article, but I did see the words New Orleans, so maybe it has something to do with Katrina.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    4:15 pm

    Have to step out for awhile. Maybe back later. Y’all play fair now.

    Moderate Line

    September 15th, 2010
    4:17 pm

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:00 pm

    Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. ~Benito Mussolini
    ++++++++
    The liberalism that Benito is referring to is classical liberalism which is not the same as the term used in American politcs. It is closer to what the Liberal Party in the UK practices. In the United State each party has adopted differents parts of classical liberalism.

    -Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western
    -Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of
    -individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It drew on the
    -economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and
    -utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were
    -called “liberal”, although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing
    -major political parties.[1]

    This a common error.

    http://www.google.com/books?id=sq-1z8VMhDEC&lpg=PP1&dq=Modern%20Political%20Philosophy&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

    Jefferson

    September 15th, 2010
    4:17 pm

    Look at the economy at the end of the Bush years, yep he fumbles….

    StJ

    September 15th, 2010
    4:19 pm

    “the economy performed significantly better in the wake of tax increases than it did in the wake of major tax cuts.”

    Well that solves it then. Increase taxes to 100% and we’ll be swimming in propsperity. Why don’t you e-mail Imam Obama with your data and suggest that to him.

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    4:20 pm

    @Wahoo

    Stopping the two wars would raise the ire of those in Congress that support the Defense-Industrial complex. They do not want to be thought of as not “protecting the country from terrorists.”

    Phase D of Medicare is a give-away to the drug companies. We can get drugs much cheaper if the law was changed.

    Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. Even if nothing is done between now and 2037, Social Security would still pay out 70% of statutory requirements. As long as we have an economy, those that are working will still continue to contribute to the fund.

    Just don’t believe the politicians will allow your first two choices to come to fruition.

    Dave

    September 15th, 2010
    4:21 pm

    “Confronted with such data, the first word out of a Keynsian’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizations for why the economy didn’t perform in real life (or a series of lies stating that it actually is) as Keynsian theory dictates it should have.”

    There… fyt…

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:22 pm

    Moderate line, I found it more relevant to the fiscal liberalism in this country of the past thirty years or so.

    (As opposed to the canard called “fiscal conservatism” touted by the GOP that never existed…)

    Abrazos

    September 15th, 2010
    4:24 pm

    StJ 4:19 pm”Increase taxes to 100% and we’ll be swimming in propsperity. Why don’t you e-mail Imam Obama with your data and suggest that to him.”

    School must’ve just let out. Hey, Mom’s got some delicious Jeno’s pizza rolls ready for ya!

    andygrd

    September 15th, 2010
    4:34 pm

    Under the Republicans, my net worth has increased. Under the Democrats, my net worth decreased or is about to decrease (redistribution of wealth).

    For you see, I work for a living. I am not protected by, nor do I require the protection of a union. I am not in academia, I apply the theories and postulates, not talk about them.

    A home in DC and one in South Carolina….. If you work hard, the policies can work for you…. But when things do go bad, I don’t whine…. I just do what I have to do…. If you did not plan your life, not my fault.

    hehehehe… I love the good life……

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    4:36 pm

    Jackie 2:57

    “the growth of disposable income, of which poor and middle-income people had very little of.”

    That’s a fair point in regards to the Laffer Curve. It’s also why I’m for our progressive tax system and am not too inclined (and I haven’t looked into it all that deeply) – my gut reaction’s against – a fair or flat tax. Seems to me once we’re done all the ‘deduct this’ and ‘exempt that’ stuff we’re about back where we began.

    At least our progressive tax system recognizes people of higher means have higher disposable incomes and people of minimum to moderate means don’t have all that much disposable income.

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:37 pm

    “POLL: Europe cools towards Obama… ”

    Could this be categorized as “climate change”?

    Bosch

    September 15th, 2010
    4:38 pm

    Good Lord, what a crazy day! So, did I miss anything fun?

    Pogo

    September 15th, 2010
    4:45 pm

    Methinks Jay has become obsessed with raising taxes on us all. Wonder why he never addresses that his and his ilk’s beloved Keynesian Economics model, most recently applied in Obama’s trillion dollars worth of worthless spending called “the Stimulus”, didn’t work? That was a trillion dollars of taxpayer money (OK, I’ll give them a +/- 200 bil swag on that one, the jury is still out). Or, maybe it wasn’t a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. Maybe it was a trillion dollars worth of future servitude to China, who buys our debt.

    The “dinosaur” Alan Greenspan spoke today and said that the Keynesian model and government intervention have not worked. Now, I am no fan of Greenspan (for a multitude of reasons) but he was on the money on this. Let the free market do its thing without government intervention and to hell with Keynes. Keynes was a socialist idiot but boy was he attractive darling to the progressive/marxist crowd, but I digress. Greenspan, on the other hand, was also in favor of raising taxes and letting the Bush taxcuts expire, which I personnally think is stupid without severe cuts in federal spending. Without cuts in government spending, raising taxes is a fruitless effort. Though learned economists and pols can argue back and forth about who is right the simple truth is that there can not be enough tax increases to ANY economic class of American people now to pay for what has been needlessly spent in the last 6 years (and especially in the last four). It just does not add up. I don’t understand that what is so plainly obvious to the average American is just ignored by Jay, Cynthia and the progressives. I guess it is because the average American has to balance their checkbooks every week and they know the deal. It is basic mathematics and it is basic economics.

    I am beginning to think Jay and Cynthia are paid by the DNC and not the AJC. Their blog topics are bordering on the ridiculous in their unwavering one-sidedness and their blindness to what the Democrats are doing to this country. The Democrats are in control now and they have made a mess in just 4 short years. Bush hurt us but he is gone and to that I say good riddance to bad rubbish. J&C (has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?) have obviously abandoned any empathy for the mess our country is in because of their beloved political ideologies. Maybe the worst thing of all is, they’re SOOOO predictable. People are now priding themselves on predicting exactly which progressive/liberal talking point these two will comment on the next day! And most are right! They seem to be wrapped in some weird liberal universe which has no introspection at all and which runs counter to what the majority of the country inately knows.

    Another thing, “USinUK” sits and smuggly writes tidbits of liberal gibberish while he/she espouses to work in “The City” in the UK. Now what kind of job can you have in the financial market, even in the foundering pseudo-socialist Great Britain, that you can spend all 8 hours of your supposed working time blogging on an insignificant blog originating in Atlanta Ga? Methinks we have a loser who probably really resides in South Fulton! Or maybe all of us should move to GB and take advantage of their liberal stupidity.

    I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

    September 15th, 2010
    4:46 pm

    Oh yeah, a “professional” “journalist” probably wouldn’t know what factors the end of the cold war, the 9/11 attacks, the Afghanistan war, the Dhimmi Karter recovery from disaster, a couple of hurricanes and all the other things Klinton didn’t have to deal with, played a role in the final numbers.

    Cherry picking for the white house, what a stooge.

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:48 pm

    Bosch, not really. Just the usual leg-humping and self-made millionaires telling us all how to get rich…

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:50 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the job front….

    “Are poll workers being used to inflate jobs totals? “

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:52 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the war front….

    “US troops continue combat missions in Iraq, despite Obama’s end-of-war speech… “

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:53 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the “racist tea partiers” front,…,

    “‘Tea party’ favorites score in DE, NY…
    Establishment Freaks…
    ‘One nation under revolt’…
    Christine Smacks Rove: ‘So-Called Political Guru’…
    CASH POURS IN FOR O’DONNELL; $500,000 IN ONE DAY…”

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:55 pm

    Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I thought there were more than 25% who depended on the gubmint for their income.

    “POLL: Only 25% of public trusts gov’t…”

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:56 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the bailout front…

    “Gov’t say banks should share FANNIE, FREDDIE costs… “

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:57 pm

    “POLL: Only 25% of public trusts gov’t…”

    Which I believe is nearly double the percentage who trust big business…

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    4:57 pm

    I am for repealling ALL of the Bush tax cuts, Then the middle and lower classes can find out that Bush did do something good for them. No need to start a class warfare, Jay can you imagine the amount of our money the feds would have if all the tax cuts expire. I keep seeing your charts and numbers about the over 250k group, but what if we included everyone I bet we could get that deficit down in no time..

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:58 pm

    AmVet
    September 15th, 2010
    4:57 pm

    As you like to say, where’s the poll, link, etc, that supports your claim?

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    5:04 pm

    In the same locale as yours?

    LOL…

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    5:04 pm

    HEY! Midori never came back to tell me what purpose she served?

    Imagine that!

    Must have gone somewhere to brainstorm.

    schnirt

    Grumpy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:07 pm

    “There was no major economic fallout in the wake of the terror attacks.”

    You’re joking, right?

    Jefferson

    September 15th, 2010
    5:10 pm

    If the tax cuts expire, it will be the wealthy that would cry the most, but still have the most.

    Th for the big one

    September 15th, 2010
    5:11 pm

    Pick different years to stop and start …get different results to your “analysis”.
    Yawn.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:15 pm

    Jay,

    I do humbly submit my apology for yesterday’s post advising against a “Part Deux.” Though the charts from yesterday were a bit ponderous (especially so late in the day),this post pulls it together rather nicely.

    Thank you.

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    5:15 pm

    Jackie – you asked what I would cut from the Federal budget and I responded. I would be repeating myself to say that I don’t think politicians have the political will to make the tough changes.

    As for SS, in my opinion, when you overspend your income by a trillion bucks, everything you spend money on contributes to the deficit. Even if it pays for itself today, if expenditures for SS are reduced (today), that frees up cash to be applied elsewhere to drive down the deficit. Somewhere, I remember reading that money is fungible.

    “Even if nothing is done between now and 2037, Social Security would still pay out 70% of statutory requirements.”

    I think you mean 70% from 2037 going forward. I hear that statistic a lot in defense of SS. I take no comfort in it and to me, it is a laughable stat. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t be satisfied receiving 70% of what I am owed and I still won’t be 62 by the time 2037 rolls around.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    5:18 pm

    Bank of America will charge clients new monthly fees if their accounts do not meet a minimum balance, the bank’s CEO Brian Moynihan said on Tuesday.

    “We will increase the account balance minimums or charge monthly fees in lieu thereof, which is the choice of the customer,” Moynihan said at a Barclays Capital conference in New York.

    These and other measures will allow the bank to compensate for revenue lost due to new regulations put in place following the 2008 financial crisis that led the US government to salvage many bank with massive bailouts, he said.

    Huh? Weren’t they one of the banks we bailed out?

    Talk about getting trickled on!!!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:18 pm

    angrygrd,

    “If you work hard, the policies can work for you…. ”

    Then why did your net worth go down?

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:22 pm

    tm,

    “Then the middle and lower classes can find out that Bush did do something good for them. ”

    No one disputes the Bush tax cuts helped middle and lower classes to a degree. The issue the out-sized benefit for the upper income classes was completely out of proportion to any others benefit.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:23 pm

    Bosch,

    “Good Lord, what a crazy day! So, did I miss anything fun?”

    Our sun must be in the same orbit…I just arrive here after a truly crazy day. But I was oh so productive!

    Pogo

    September 15th, 2010
    5:24 pm

    “Anti-business” is so passe and it is a remnant of the 1960’s crowd in this country. It is only being touted now by those that don’t have to work and compete in todays workforce. Without business, American’s don’t have jobs and there is nothing else to be said. This lesson is being driven home to Obama and his ideological brethren more and more each day and it is really going to really be driven home to them in November. Try talking the “anti-business” talk to the rest of the worlds non-European citizens. Even Europe is now coming to reality and it has implemented austerity measures but it will be a painful withdrawal for it’s socialized workers (reference the strikes and shutdowns of hospitals and transit in France by government employees). Socialists are like addicts; they are addicted to the easy money provided by government programs but when they are taken off of it, they raise hell. The same will happen here but thankfully, the hospitals and transit have yet to be taken over by the socialists (no thanks to Obama and his union payoffs at taxpayers expense).

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:27 pm

    Pogo,

    “Methinks we have a loser who probably really resides in South Fulton! ”

    You mean those dark lazy ones in South Fulton vs. those hard working light ones in North Fulton?

    MPercy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:30 pm

    Deep Throat, Part Deux @2:14 pm “I think Obama could buy a lot more votes with an offering of a tax cut for 97 to 98 percent of US households”

    You mean 97-98% of taxpaying households? Because we already have something around 45% of American household that aren’t paying any income taxes. And we have about 12% that aren’t paying any income tax *or* payroll taxes.

    Remember, “cutting taxes” for someone who isn’t paying taxes is impossible, unless you resort to semantic nonsense like increasing refundable credits. In many cases the so-called EITC is nothing short of a welfare check.

    The top 2% (about 2.8M households) earned 27.95% of the nation’s total AGI, but paid 48.68% of all the income taxes. But they’re not paying their “fair share” are they? Hell, if the top 2% all decided to take one year off, which they presumably could easily afford and would be perfectly legal, the whole government would come to a halt–that’s how much of the load they’re carrying, but their not paying their “fair share”?

    Dusty

    September 15th, 2010
    5:31 pm

    I don’t know about the Laffer curve but I surely do “laff” ever time I read this blog. You can’t beat it.

    I mean we got truthers, tea partiers, humpers, gurus, vets, religionists and the smartest people in the whole wide world who want to tell you about it. That on top of the world’s greatest neo-journalist. who doesn’t even seem to know that Reagan is dead. The very first line here contains REAGAN. Hot dog!! Prop him up again!!!

    I must stick to the subject. Yes! The Laffer Curve!! I predict it will soon drop. It’s latitude is far too high for its longitude. My generous tax reduction made it dip into recession of the greatest mobility seen since Geroge Washignton crossed the Delaware.. I defy such statistcs and remain stable in the aftermath of the Laffer losers as led by Methusela Methodius. You remember him, AmVet? How he stood strong on the pass at Themopylae? Ah yes, a real Laffer, reaching his mighty moments of curvaceous courage. And he laffed!! .Then he died, like this blog.

    This bucket of worms is a bit too long, Bookman. As UsinUK said: borrriiiinnnngggg.!..

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    5:40 pm

    It’s not you, it’s US…

    Look, let’s be civil adults and not let this descend into yelling. It’s really not you, it’s me. We both know you deserve a better democracy than me. I mean, let’s face it – you’re cool and urbane and Euro and sexy; I’m frumpy and overweight and not that bright. You’ve said so plenty of times yourself. And you’re probably right that I’ll never quite understand you. But I think I know you well enough now to understand you’d be happier with a different country to govern.

    Sniff…sniff…SCHNIRT!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/09/barack-can-we-talk.html

    samuel

    September 15th, 2010
    5:41 pm

    In 1981 (when Jimmy Carter left office), the national debt was $995 billion, or 33% of GDP. By the time Ronald Reagan left office (1989), the national debt had almost tripled, to $2.9 trillion, or 53% of GDP.

    For 35 years, from the end of World War II until the early 1980’s, the national debt as a % of GDP fell constantly and consistently. But since Reagan shifted the country from Keynesian economics to supply-side economics, the national debt as a % of GDP has been rising for most of the last 30 years, with the exception of the Clinton years, when it fell from 66% (1993) to 56% (2001).

    Under Reagan, GDP outgrew national debt by $400 billion in 8 years.

    Under Bush 41, National debt outgrew GDP by $300 billion in 4 years.

    Under Bush 43, national debt outgrew GDP by $2.2 trillion in 8 years.

    On the other hand…

    Under Jimmy Carter, GDP outgrew national debt by $800 billion in 4 years.

    Under Bill Clinton, GDP outgrew national debt by $2.2 trillion in 8 years.

    As has been pointed out on this blog today, Eisenhower was the last Republican president to balance the budget, some 50 years ago. That was the heyday of Keynesian economics.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:41 pm

    Pogo,

    “Socialists are like addicts; they are addicted to the easy money provided by government programs but when they are taken off of it, they raise hell.”

    Would these folks count as socialists?

    IBM Corporation, General Electric,Honeywell International,Xerox,Dow Chemical,Caterpillar,Motorola, 3M,United Technologies,Ford Motor,Science Applications Intl.,DuPont, General Motors, Corning, Goodrich Corporation, Advanced Micro Devices, Praxair, Air Products & Chemicals, Lucent, Technologies, General Dynamics, Danaher, Cummins, Northrop Grumman, Dana, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Inc., Rohm and Haas Company, Sealed Air Corporation, Texas Instruments
    Owens Corning, Engelhard, Chevron Phillips, Chevron Texaco, Raytheon, Monsanto, Baxter International

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    5:46 pm

    jewcowboy
    How can the middle and lower classes complain if we return to Clinton’s tax brackets. He was their hero and Bush was the devil. All we have to tell them is that this is what Clinton wanted, Have you seen how much of our money the fed gets if we return to those brackets. Its two or three time the amount that doing away with only one, Jay’s numbers clearly shows that under Clinton’s tax rates life was good for all, both tax payer and the feds and that is the only way to fix all of our problems, so lets go back to the Clinton days..The problem is we know they will not use the money to lower deficits.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:49 pm

    tm,

    I’ll do you one better..let’s return to the tax code under Nixon. He was a solid Republican right?

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    5:49 pm

    Methinks we have a loser who probably really resides in South Fulton!

    Every once in awhile, one of the con’s true bigoted colors come out…

    http://tinyurl.com/25w8puo

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:52 pm

    Pogo,

    Of course we can’t leave out those socialists at ADM,now can we?

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

    Mark from NYC

    September 15th, 2010
    5:53 pm

    Jay,

    In case you don’t realize it, the tax rates during Clinton’s 8 years were on average more supply-side in nature than for Reagan’s 8 years. That the economy did so well during Clinton’s 8 years is hardly a refutation of supply-side. Also, 1981 shouldn’t be the starting point for measuring the effectiveness of the supply-side tax cuts under Reagan.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:53 pm

    AmVet @ 5.49,

    Opps! :)

    Doggone/GA

    September 15th, 2010
    5:53 pm

    “let’s return to the tax code under Nixon”

    I’m beginning to think we need to return to the tax code under Eisenhower

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:57 pm

    Doggone/GA,

    “I’m beginning to think we need to return to the tax code under Eisenhower”

    I could handle that ;)

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    5:58 pm

    “I’m beginning to think we need to return to the tax code under Eisenhower.”

    You mean when corporations actually paid federal income taxes and weren’t the beneficiaries of endless giveaways and handouts?

    Oh perish the trickle-down thought!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:59 pm

    Doggone/GA

    September 15th, 2010
    6:00 pm

    “You mean when corporations actually paid federal income taxes and weren’t the beneficiaries of endless giveaways and handouts?”

    Radical, isn’t it?

    Dusty

    September 15th, 2010
    6:02 pm

    Lets all sing together…..

    How many socialists can you count today? la la

    How many socialists can you count today? la la

    A hundred or so in Washington!

    Watch them blubber mo & mo!!

    How many socialists can you count today? la la

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    6:07 pm

    jewcowboy
    I am all for the Nixon tax plan but you also have to do away with the lower income tax credits (give aways) that did nit existr at that time.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:10 pm

    tm,

    “I am all for the Nixon tax plan but you also have to do away with the lower income tax credits (give aways) that did nit existr at that time.”

    Fine by me.

    getalife

    September 15th, 2010
    6:12 pm

    rove vs rush.

    Popcorn.

    Mmmm,mmm,mmm.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:13 pm

    tm,

    One thing though…union membership was 32% under Nixon vs 7.5% now…meaning wages were actually living wages back then.

    So let’s restore the unions and wages…and do away with lower income tax credits. Fair enough?

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    6:16 pm

    Jewcowboy
    You know this guy Jay better than I, would he pick Nixon or Clintons tax brackeets (policy) if that was all to pick from. We both agreee both would substantially increase the money the feds take from us.but what would they do with it?

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    6:21 pm

    You “progressives” sure are having a tough time settling on how far back in the past you want us to go.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:21 pm

    tm,

    “but what would they do with it?”

    well…my opinion is to raise taxes in boom times to create a surplus to sustain you in down cycles so you can cut them…my opinion is to cut spending in good times to create a surplus in down cycles so you can increase spending in down cycles to spur growth.

    Unfortunately that means a continuity of leaderships economic thought…and that does not happen.

    Obama is doing what I would hope he would do during a down cycle…the problem is we didn’t save for a rainy day during the previous boom.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:23 pm

    RW-(the original),

    Can’t we pick and choose?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjK9GJMBpt0

    Deep Throat, Part Deux

    September 15th, 2010
    6:27 pm

    MPercy,

    I think about the plight of the rich almost as much as they think of me. Screw ‘em. If they don’t like the opportunities to enrich themselves off the people here, they are more than welcome to pay up and leave. I could care less. It would just open up more slots for advancement. They can even take every dollar ever printed with them if they want and we’ll just declare bankruptcy and let them see how much they can buy with the tons of paper.

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    6:29 pm

    jewcowbioy
    what exactly is Pres O during the downturn to cut spending as you suggest he has done during this down turn

    getalife

    September 15th, 2010
    6:30 pm

    “In an interview with CNN, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina declared that,

    The Republican establishment is out!”

    It’s a civil war.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:33 pm

    tm,

    “what exactly is Pres O during the downturn to cut spending as you suggest he has done during this down turn”

    I wrote:
    “my opinion is to cut spending in good times to create a surplus in down cycles so you can increase spending in down cycles to spur growth.”

    Last I checked this was a down cycle…and time to spend…the time to cut spending and raise taxes was 2001 – 2007….

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:36 pm

    jewcowboy 5:41

    ooohhhhhhh, that was goooooooood!

    I’m gonna steal that -

    Dusty

    September 15th, 2010
    6:36 pm

    tm…where have you been? Haven’t you heard about all the good projects we taxpayers are supporting.

    let’s see: How to lose weight!!! (For fatsos in the fog.!)
    How to analyze jazz and study the sounds at Ga Tech!! (Go toot your horn better!)
    How to instruct African gentlemen on errr “cleaning up” after fun with the ladies
    (No comment.)
    There’s great imagination in Washington as you see and we are paying for it. Put that on your Laffer curve.

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    6:39 pm

    jewcowboy,

    Sam Beckett didn’t exactly get to pick and choose, did he?

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:45 pm

    Hi Paul!

    Got the Audi back today…I think I’m going to keep it. I can’t justify the 13mph…or the insurance rates…but I did miss it.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:47 pm

    RW-(the original),

    Well…you got me there ;)

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    6:50 pm

    jewcowboy,

    At 13 mph, I would expect the insurance rates to be quite reasonable.

    Ninja

    September 15th, 2010
    6:50 pm

    Great article Jay. Too bad the “discussion” afterwords proved why this country is doomed.

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    6:51 pm

    RIP, Red Neckerson.

    The Boner's Tan Line

    September 15th, 2010
    6:54 pm

    Tonight’s the night. The Boner’s taking Christine out on the town to celebrate her win, and finally getting her college degree. Then the Boner’s going to do a little deflowering. Going to make her realize what she’s been missing all these years. A tigress will be let loose. She’ll be screaming “Do it again, TAN MAN”! Whew!

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:54 pm

    jewcowboy

    Congratulations! It’s a really beautiful automobile. It’s rather nice to be cocooned like that and to enjoy all the touches you don’t find elsewhere. Worked with a guy once, saw me taking a cover off the car I drove, said ‘it’s just a car.’ Philistine…… but, to be fair, he just didn’t understand.

    Enjoy.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:55 pm

    Taxpayer,

    “At 13 mph, I would expect the insurance rates to be quite reasonable.”

    Actually…in Atlanta…that probably is my average speed :) mpg is what I meant…damn fingers.

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:56 pm

    BTL 6:54

    You Progressives have some interesting pathologies….

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:58 pm

    jewcowboy

    Okay, take the miles you drive a year…. figure the difference in gallons consumed between 13 mpg and 20 mpg… then cost out the difference.

    Probably costs about the same as a couple dinners out. And for enjoyment day in, day out, throughout an entire year… it’s a flippin’ bargain!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:59 pm

    The Boner’s Tan Line,

    As long as he doesn’t don’t spill the seed of Onan…

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-plays-christine-odonnell-90s-no-masturbation-mtv-interview/

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:01 pm

    Paul,

    “Philistine…… but, to be fair, he just didn’t understand.”

    :) There is sentimental value, of course, and mr. nonjewcowboy never let me drive it…I’ve started realize why!

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    7:02 pm

    jewcowboy

    I wasn’t going to mention that part…. I’d bet nonjewcowboy’s smiling -

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:03 pm

    “A tigress will be let loose”

    Or a grizzly…is Boehner into bears? Oh my!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:04 pm

    Paul,

    Knowing him…more likely cringing…

    Punxsutawney Phil

    September 15th, 2010
    7:06 pm

    Can you please “show your work” on the federal revenue numbers? I’m not the smartest person, but I thought revenues would be the numbers in the total receipts column. I’m assuming we multiplied the %s by GDP since the % of GDP looks to stay relatively constant. Or you could just use the table that gives actual dollars. Anyway,

    From 1981 (599.2 billion) to 1993 (1,152.8 billion), that’s a 92.4% increase.

    From 1993 (1,152.8 billion) to 2001 (1,993.9 billion), that’s an 84.1% increase.

    And from 2001 (1,993.9 billion) to 2008 (2,526.8 billion) or 2009 (2,107.1 billion) that’s either a 26.7% or 5.7% increase.

    I can’t figure out where your 20.7%, 46.6% or -13.9% came from. Am I missing something or did you just flat-out make this stuff up?

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    7:07 pm

    jewcowboy

    :-)

    Pleasant evening, all -

    RB from Gwinnett

    September 15th, 2010
    7:11 pm

    Here’s some more facts for you Jay. The AJC is losing customers at double the national average.

    To apply the same sort of attack logic Jay applies here every day to that fact, Jay works at the AJC, so Jay must be the cause of the AJC’s decline.

    I actually do think Jay is a factor in the AJC’s decline, but the point is, the simplistic garbage Jay has posted here only impresses people who aren’t able to think. There are far more factors that go into this nation’s economy than who was president at what peak in the cycles, which is all Jay has presented here. Nobody wants to acknowledge the incredible economy we had during Bush II’s term up to the point the dems took control of congress. Because it doesn’t fit their agenda.

    The other point is it IS the simplistic highly partisan garbage Jay and his cohorts spew here every day that’s driving the AJC out of business and I suspect the AJC’s customer surveys confirm that as fact.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:12 pm

    Paul,

    Have a great evening!

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:14 pm

    193 comments in 9½ hours = Jay is right and the right wingers have nothing to counter.

    Well played, Jay.

    Also:

    Could I not make the same statement about stimulus spending.

    Well no, you couldn’t. Because, you see, the recovery act spending? that is ongoing. This here’s historical data.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:16 pm

    RB from Gwinnett,

    “The other point is it IS the simplistic highly partisan garbage Jay and his cohorts spew here every day that’s driving the AJC out of business ”

    Looking at the number of posts his column generate I highly doubt that. A more reasonable answer in that the way in which we receive our news is changing…much as the way in which we receive our music and entertainment is changing.

    Who actually reads a hard copy newspaper anymore? Speaking environmentally it does not make any sense to receive a paper copy. Yet people are reluctant to pay for content online…a conundrum the AJC, Sony, 20th Century Fox, etc. find themselves in.

    After all…you contribute here right..has it driven you away?

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:20 pm

    RB from Gwinnett,

    “Nobody wants to acknowledge the incredible economy we had during Bush II’s term up to the point the dems took control of congress.”

    Surely you are not so simple as to believe that something as complex as the economy is so dependent on Congress, it is immediately affected by a new members of Congress…

    By that line of reasoning….9/11 was entirely Bush’s fault and the Clinton, Bush I and Reagan admins had nothing to do with it…

    Hillbilly Deluxe

    September 15th, 2010
    7:20 pm

    Who actually reads a hard copy newspaper anymore?

    I do but not the AJC because it doesn’t “Cover Dixie Like The Dew” anymore.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:22 pm

    Speaking environmentally it does not make any sense to receive a paper copy.

    That’s more or less what did it for me. I had subscribed for eight-plus years. But I just didn’t spend much time with the dead-tree version any more. Really sealed the deal when I installed a wireless router at home; didn’t see the point of having the paper any more when a backup PC could do the work where we usually had breakfast with the AJC. Although I still kinda miss it.

    I’ve always been willing to pay for news content. I contribute to NPR every year, after all. If the AJC would do some stuff I’d like (like, say, force knuckle draggers to register to post at their blogs; provide a premium position for subscribers to comment on their blogs, etc.) I’d be all over that. But they’ve chosen not to.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:23 pm

    Hillbilly Deluxe,

    “I do…”

    I had to cancel my AJC and NYT subscriptions b/c they piled up in the driveway. I am almost all strictly digital now with my media content. I would be happy to pay a “premium” user fee (I did with the NYT) but evidently I am in the minority.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    7:25 pm

    The AJC covers Dixie Like Doo Doo?

    J/K, Hillbilly…just kidding.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:27 pm

    it doesn’t “Cover Dixie Like The Dew” anymore.

    Heh. Here are two guys who cover(ed) Dixie like the Dew.

    seriously, have a look. you likee. really. herewith a taste:

    To our surprise, Robert was incredibly friendly. He talks in detail about how he’s frustrated with how Confederate flags get a bad rap and how he condemns all the racist connotations people associate with the flag. He said everyone is welcome in his shop regardless of where they come from. The guys at the shop turned out to be some of the friendliest people I’ve met on this journey. I expected them to be all prejudiced towards me, and here I was being prejudiced towards them.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:28 pm

    stands for decibels,

    “I contribute to NPR every year, after all.”

    I contribute and volunteer at the pledge drives…if you call in you may get to talk to me! But I suggest you donate online…

    Finn McCool

    September 15th, 2010
    7:30 pm

    If we let the tax cuts on the rich expire, what will happen to all those jobs the rich folks are giving us? Oh, wait, they’re already gone…pre-expiration!

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    7:32 pm

    An interesting take on the New (& Improved?) Neo-Con Party…

    It is fratricide of the highest order. And it has been a sight to behold, as the uprising spawned several ugly GOP primaries, defeating enough Senate incumbents and serious candidates, such as Castle of Delaware, to all but guarantee the GOP can’t win back the Senate.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/15/borger.gop.fratricide/index.html?hpt=T1

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:36 pm

    Finn McCool,

    Howdy! It’s been awhile.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:37 pm

    I contribute and volunteer at the pledge drives

    Thing is, I rag on NPR all the time on the interwebs. I call them “Nice Polite Republicans” and such. I heard a story this morning on the TeaTards that had me yelling at my radio “are you going to even [bleep]ing MENTION that these [bleep]heads are FINANCED by the [bleep]ing Koch Brothers??”

    Still, it’s better than anything else I can tune in not called “Democracy Now.”

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:41 pm

    AmVet,
    From your link:
    “Pardon the expression, but it seems the GOP has created its own miscreant offspring.”

    This has been my question all along. These Orange Pekoe Brigade candidates my win…but to what end? Who will back legislation they propose, given the acrimonious tone they affect…or is it their plan to get to D.C. and just vote “no”?

    RB from Gwinnett

    September 15th, 2010
    7:42 pm

    “Looking at the number of posts his column generate I highly doubt that. ”

    The same 10 people on here posting all day long with no ads on these screens ain’t paying no bills at the AJC.

    Yes, the way people receive their news and other things is changing, however they’re changing at double the national average at the AJC. Why is that? I actually enjoy perusing the paper, but when I cancelled my paper copy, I told them if I wanted to donate to the DNC, I’d send them a check directly and could no longer in good conscience support this garbage.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:45 pm

    stands for decibels,

    “I call them “Nice Polite Republicans” and such”

    I do consider them the most balance of all non-print news media…but they do seem to take the “balanced” approach overboard sometimes.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:45 pm

    I’d send them a check directly and could no longer in good conscience support this garbage

    jeez, someone call a wahhhhmbulance.

    Moderate Line

    September 15th, 2010
    7:46 pm

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:22 pm
    Moderate line, I found it more relevant to the fiscal liberalism in this country of the past thirty years or so.

    (As opposed to the canard called “fiscal conservatism” touted by the GOP that never existed…)
    ++++++++++++
    I see no relevance.

    Benito started out as a socialist until he was kicked out for supporting the war.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:47 pm

    gotta run. Stuff awaits.

    pleasant evening to all (including the WATBs).

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:47 pm

    RB from Gwinnett,

    “I told them if I wanted to donate to the DNC, I’d send them a check directly and could no longer in good conscience support this garbage.”

    So why do you visit this website? You certainly will not find me posting comments on the Fox News website.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:54 pm

    Gee… I wonder why a major “conservative” voiced paper does not exist in Atlanta if there is such a huge demand?

    One would think an entrepreneurial type would jump all over that if it was financially viable.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:59 pm

    And that “concervative” voice…the Washington Times…it seems to have a problem without a $35M infusion from its chief Moon.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002043.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:59 pm

    “concervative” = “conservative” Or at least it should.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:02 pm

    Jay, only one President had the good fortune to have the Internet bubble occur on his watch and have the burst hit his predecessor. That’s pretty much what this analysis boils down to.

    Clinton rode the windfall tax revenues from the Internet bubble during the nineties and turned over the wreckage to our President Bush. President Bush also reaped the results of Clinton’s do-nothing approach to Islamofascist terrorism. We should be thankful that the nation and economy didn’t totally collapse following these events. President Bush prevented that.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:03 pm

    sorry, not “predecessor”…”successor”

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    8:05 pm

    jewcowbpy
    you forgot about the WSJ which most of us get here in Atlanta every morning.

    niells

    September 15th, 2010
    8:06 pm

    but…Laffer’s curve doesn’t predict that lowering taxes increases revenue. It predicts that raising taxes beyond a certain point has diminishing returns and lowering them beyond a certain point has diminishing returns. Additionally, to believe historical data demonstrates Laffer is wrong, you must also believe that revenue is higher using a 100% tax rate than a 50% tax rate. Which admittedly is something a Stalin or Hitler could achieve.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:07 pm

    It’s the Spending, Stupid
    A chronic voter ‘concern’ has now exploded into a broad public movement.
    By DANIEL HENNINGER

    At a backyard town-hall meeting in Fairfax, Va., Monday, President Obama explained why Christine O’Donnell was going to beat Mike Castle in the GOP’s Delaware Senate primary:

    “They saw the Recovery Act,” he said. “They saw TARP. They saw the auto bailout. And they look at these and think, ‘God, all these huge numbers adding up.’ So they’re right to be concerned about that.”

    Of course Mr. Obama was speaking generally about the public mood. Let’s call it his “generic” explanation for the current voter impulse to wipe out GOP incumbents now and Democrats in November.

    Here’s your bumper sticker for the 2010 elections: It’s the Spending, Stupid.
    ————————

    Henninger must read your blog, Jay. That’s been my line for weeks now.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:11 pm

    Lil’ Barry Bailout,

    “Clinton rode the windfall tax revenues from the Internet bubble during the nineties and turned over the wreckage to our President Bush. ”

    Let’s see..the dot com bubble burst in March of 2010…leaving wreckage for Bush and causing a market loss of about $5T.

    The real estate bubble bursts in May of 2006, eventually causing $5T in losses in Fannie and Freddie alone…causing a worldwide recession…and leaving wreckage for whom?

    I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

    September 15th, 2010
    8:12 pm

    This blog topic could be graded on the Laugher Curve, as ate up with white house propaganda that it is….

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:12 pm

    tm,

    “you forgot about the WSJ which most of us get here in Atlanta every morning.”

    Sorry…the only one I still get is the Atlanta Business Chronicle.

    godless heathen

    September 15th, 2010
    8:15 pm

    Yawn. Another Bookman column stating that the trouble with this country is that the peeps with jobs aren’t paying enough taxes.

    I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

    September 15th, 2010
    8:17 pm

    Where have all the aisle reachers gone?

    Last time passin…

    Where have all the RINOs gone?

    Long time ago

    Where have all the squishies gone?

    Tea Party have booted them every one

    When will they ever learn?

    When will they ever learn, just askin…

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    8:17 pm

    tow many peopely truely belive that if we givethe feds more of our money in taxes that it will use it to reduct deficits? Its jsut going to go to more hand ours.

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    8:19 pm

    Jewcowboy
    You need to geet current in yoor reading the ABC is just advertisement for the local business community

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:19 pm

    jewcowboy: Looks to me like our President Bush did a far better job cleaning up Clinton’s messes than the Idiot Messiah is doing cleaning up after Bush’s.

    10% unemployment. ‘Nuff said.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:19 pm

    godless heathen,

    “Another Bookman column stating that the trouble with this country is that the peeps with jobs aren’t paying enough taxes.”

    Yeah…those peeps without jobs should be supporting this country. Since they can afford it. ;)

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:22 pm

    Lil’ Barry Bailout,

    If you are comparing the dot com bust to now…you are seriously delusional…as I pointed out…the total market loss for the dot com was $5T…the same for just Fannie and Freddie.

    And if you remember…nearly 800K jobs were lost in the month Obama took office…and this is his fault?

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:22 pm

    Right on, jewcowboy. They could start by getting off their taxpayer-provided unemployment benefits after a year or so.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:23 pm

    tm,

    “You need to geet current in yoor reading the ABC is just advertisement for the local business community”

    I would rather spend locally :) Seriously, for me, there is more personally pertinent info in the ABC than in the AJC or NYT.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:24 pm

    You might want to be careful about how much blame you give our President Bush for $5T in losses at Fannie and Freddie, since the Idiot Messiah just signed off on a massive financial “reform” bill that did exactly nothing to reform those Democrat-sponsored failures.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:24 pm

    Lil’ Barry Bailout,

    “They could start by getting off their taxpayer-provided unemployment benefits after a year or so.”

    Which they ironically pay taxes on.

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    8:25 pm

    Saw an article today where a person was complaining Michigan that his unemplyment benefitts have run out after 99 weeks. You would think he would have caught on that he needed to go so place else before almost two years to find a job

    jm

    September 15th, 2010
    8:26 pm

    Jay, ignoring the actual data for a moment, the Laffer curve is generally agreed to be irrelevant at the current tax levels.

    The central theory was that tax cuts could produce more tax revenue due to higher growth (ceteris paribus, and true) AND that this growth revenue would more than offset the pro-rata loss in tax revenue. Again, this is false at the current tax rates. However, at higher tax rates (I don’t think anybody knows exactly where in aggregate, and it is different for each individual), the theory is correct. Obviously, taken to the extreme, if the government taxed everything 100%, no one would work and there wouldn’t be any tax revenue. A tax cut from 100% to 99% would produce more tax revenue because some (poor souls) would finally start working.

    At any rate, the argument over the laffer curve is just silly at this point. Tax cuts at this level will not produce growth that will fully offset the tax decrease, although tax cuts, accompanied by government spending constraints, DO PRODUCE HIGHER GROWTH. Higher taxes are necessary for everyone in order to close the budget deficit since the Democrats seem unwilling to engage in the necessary spending cuts (as even Greenspan has acknowledged). We will slowly go broke with constant, incessant tax increases, but perhaps that’s better than the sudden death from a US bankruptcy.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:27 pm

    More House Democrats call for tax cuts for all

    By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer – 38 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – More Democrats joined Republicans on Wednesday in calling for the preservation of tax breaks for Americans of every income level, bolting this election season from President Barack Obama’s plan to preserve cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 and let taxes rise for the wealthiest Americans.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:28 pm

    jewcowboy: Which they ironically pay taxes on.
    ————

    What’s ironic about that? They’re using the program, they should at least help pay for it. Call it a “user fee”.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:29 pm

    Lil’ Barry Bailout,

    “You might want to be careful about how much blame you give our President Bush for $5T in losses at Fannie and Freddie”

    Nice way to side step the fact that the dot com bust and the 9/11 effect were drops in the bucket compared to the current issue. By the time Obama took office, 8M jobs were lost. And that is just b/c D’s took control of Congress in 2007 right? Nothing to do with the decade plus control of congress by the R’s…b/c fiscal policy and works that fast.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:30 pm

    Show us the spending cuts. Then we can talk about tax increases.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    8:30 pm

    Where have all the squishies gone?

    I’ll never live it down. I’m forced to wear a big red “S” ’cause I let Slick Willy squish me his first go ’round.

    ^^^ Sounds really bad, but ’tis true.

    I’m a marked woman.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:33 pm

    There might be a REASON that the dot com bust and 9/11 were a “drop in the bucket”. That reason would be adult leadership.

    Lil' Barry Bailout

    September 15th, 2010
    8:34 pm

    Too bad our President Bush didn’t think up that “jobs saved” or “lives touched” BS before the Idiot Messiah.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:35 pm

    tm,

    “You would think he would have caught on that he needed to go so place else before almost two years to find a job”

    Yeah…the 99 weeks gets me…but then I do somewhat understand not wanting to uproot. Though it strikes as somewhat selfish. I would love to live near my family, who live in a near natural paradise on the Gulf Coast…but I need to support myself the local job market doesn’t allow me that…so Iive where I can make money.

    Though I guess I would be considered white-collar, so I have more options. Education opportunity for blue collared jobs is key as is the funding of trade schools…everyone needs a good plumber and mechanic.

    getalife

    September 15th, 2010
    8:36 pm

    “Clinton: New GOP Makes Bush Look Liberal.”

    Still the big dawg.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    8:39 pm

    Lil’ Barry Bailout,

    “That reason would be adult leadership”

    Yes..I’m sure that was it…it had nothing to do with the actual extent of the business cycle and nature of the industry. Otherwise it would be exactly the same as now…

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    8:53 pm

    Incredible. The worst president in modern, if not all of American history, and the BushCo apologists here are STILL shucking and grinning for him like he was some sort of Thomas Jefferson???

    Truly amazing the depths some will sink to to justify their twisted worldviews.

    He was certainly the most serially impeachable, deadly and incompetent POTOS ever. A long, long litany of debacles and disasters. Hell, his first 100 days alone were a complete train wreck.

    And the excuse? The dot com bubble? OMFG.

    What next? Acorn? CRA? Carter giving away the Panama Canal?

    And had Slick Willy just kept his Johnson in his pants, George Bush would not have been anything but a gnat on the elephant’s ass.

    I personally hold MLB responsible for not electing that massive mess up commissioner. (Think Sammy Sosa and Harold Baines). Sure he would have found more ways to screw up the national pastime, but at least we wouldn’t have had over 5,000 flag draped coffins coming home to Dover AFB, while he and his gutless chickenhawks played toy soldier.

    It will take a couple of decades minimum just to undo the massive devastation he and his gang of inept corporate wh0res wrought upon the American middle class.

    This on top of four previous administrations who also waged economic war on working American families.

    And the rubes who comprise the neo-con party think that their salvation lies in some sort of November miracle, where they get more of the same…

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    8:54 pm

    Getalife:

    I’m a marked woman, but I don’t own a blue dress.

    (ISH)

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    8:55 pm

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    professional skeptic

    September 15th, 2010
    9:19 pm

    AmVet
    September 15th, 2010
    8:53 pm

    And now it seems they’re shucking and grinning for Nathan Deal. Unbelievable!!

    http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/09/15/deal-bankruptcy-not-an-option-will-live-up-to-our-obligations/?cp=1

    No Need To Thank Me

    September 15th, 2010
    9:25 pm

    This blog topic could be graded on the Laugher Curve, as ate up with Reagan white house propaganda that it is….

    There you go, Whiner. All fixed.

    getalife

    September 15th, 2010
    9:25 pm

    Monica was the devil with the blue dress on.

    Southern Comfort

    September 15th, 2010
    9:26 pm

    skeptic

    Deal is an honest man. He said he’d meet his obligations. However, as a true politician, he’s refusing to say how he’ll meet them.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    9:29 pm

    A gathering of the lib’s commiserating with one and other desperately attempting to dispel their collective anxieties of impending defeat in November. @@ best to just enjoy the evening and not witness this sadness of fellow Americans locked in this destructive Lemming mentality.

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    9:30 pm

    You’d think sooner or later that repetitive diatribe would get tagged by Akismet.

    So now the definition of “winning” on the blog is that the same topic can be posted on consecutive days and if the comment count goes down the writer won? I hate to tell you this but the comment count on this particular blog is pretty meaningless when individual posters have double-digit percentages of the comments.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    9:32 pm

    getalife,

    “Monica was the devil with the blue dress on.”

    Generally I’ve found the “devil” tends to be the one-eyed trouser snake rather that the 20ish naive young women. ;)

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    9:34 pm

    SoCo,

    Maybe a super highway that just happens to go right through that property where the outdoorsman shop sits would do the trick.

    :-)

    No Need To Thank Me

    September 15th, 2010
    9:34 pm

    I think the conservatives are grasping for anything to make themselves feel better. They’ve thrown Bush under the bus and now they’re throwing the tea partiers under it. Such a sad display of hate and frustration and anger and fear from the likes of Bill Kristol and Karl Rove and the other loyal conservatives. I can hear them not only saying no to each other but hell no and you lie. So sad.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    9:35 pm

    jewcowboy,

    yes in search of the bearded clam.

    Southern Comfort

    September 15th, 2010
    9:37 pm

    RW

    Methinks you were a politician in a former life. That or you know a few now. :)

    Hillbilly Deluxe

    September 15th, 2010
    9:40 pm

    Maybe a super highway that just happens to go right through that property where the outdoorsman shop sits would do the trick.

    Well, they did build a transmission line a few years back, that managed to make a jog, so it went around his property. Went in a straight line, other than his property, so stranger things have happened.

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    9:41 pm

    skeptic, clearly the last two presidents prove that credentials matter not a tinkers damn anymore.

    The current one has virtually none.

    And his predecessor had plenty. Almost all of them abysmal.

    And look what four disastrous years got him. Re-elected for four even worse and more deadly ones…

    And now one of the most corrupt, backasswards members of the US Congress is certainly going to be the next governor of Georgia. Where they like their deals crooked.

    One can only imagine how he’ll finds new ways to trump Pray for Rain’s lack of effective governance.

    Extending the Baptist’s mini-prohibition to Saturdays?

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    9:42 pm

    SoCo,

    I got very early training when I was a wee lad in Florida and my grandfather used to tell me just why the Florida turnpike went where it went at the time. Then when I moved to Georgia I-20 was being built and it was deja vu.

    Dusty

    September 15th, 2010
    9:42 pm

    Poor AmVet,

    Still preaching the same ol’ sermon we’ve all heard before. Clinton good. Bush bad. Soldiers killed.Neocon this . Neocons that. all evil. the end is near!!!

    Are you trying for “worstest of all” in this evening men’s club? You need some new material. Definitely..Just ’cause Bookman is stuck on liberal litanies is no reason for bloggers to be as dull and repetitious. There must be some optimism somewhere.

    In the meantime, goodnight …

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    9:43 pm

    Del,

    “yes in search of the bearded clam.”

    :)

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    9:47 pm

    Goodnight Dusty…and goodnight to all the rest of you as well..
    “One summer night, out on a flat headland, all but surrounded by the waters of the bay, the horizons were remote and distant rims on the edge of space. Millions of stars blazed in darkness, and on the far shore a few lights burned in cottages. Otherwise there was no reminder of human life. My companion and I were alone with the stars: the misty river of the Milky Way flowing across the sky, the patterns of the constellations standing out bright and clear, a blazing planet low on the horizon. It occurred to me that if this were a sight that could be seen only once in a century, this little headland would be thronged with spectators. But it can be see many scores of nights in any year, and so the lights burned in the cottages and the inhabitants probably gave not a thought to the beauty overhead; and because they could see it almost any night, perhaps they never will.” ~Rachel Carson

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    9:47 pm

    jewcowboy,

    LOL…seems that no one else has a sense of humor on here anymore. Folks should just chill a little bit.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    9:50 pm

    jewcowboy,

    That’s too damn deep for me. G’night y’all…taps

    Jefferson

    September 15th, 2010
    9:53 pm

    Someone said businesses brings jobs, I say without jobs you can’t have businesses — somebody has to actually do some real work.

    Finn McCool

    September 15th, 2010
    9:58 pm

    Give the wealthy tax breaks so they can create jobs…in India, China, etc.

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    9:59 pm

    I’m with you Del.

    My work here is done.

    I got Dusty to crawl out of her cave long enough to park her broom.

    And tomorrow is gonna be a long way. (Somebody’s got to pay for more welfare for the wealthy…)

    Later, Bookmaniacs…

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    10:28 pm

    Del,

    It’s not so much a sense of humor thing as it is an evolution of grooming habits thing…and I guess I’ll leave it there.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Think how many more people would have had a chance to live and see that sky if it wasn’t for Rachel Carson’s efforts to keep malaria alive.

    :-)

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    10:30 pm

    Yikes!

    Move that smiley above the fold.

    (IHB)

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel.

    September 15th, 2010
    10:39 pm

    mmuuwwaaAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    WASHINGTON – More Democrats joined Republicans on Wednesday in calling for the preservation of tax breaks for Americans of every income level, bolting this election season from President Barack Obama’s plan to preserve cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 and let taxes rise for the wealthiest Americans.

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel.

    September 15th, 2010
    10:41 pm

    mmuuwwaaAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    WASHINGTON – More Democrats joined Republicans on Wednesday in calling for the preservation of tax breaks for Americans of every income level, bolting this election season from President Barack Obama’s plan to preserve cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 and let taxes rise for the wealthiest Americans.

    [...] Republican in primaryJournal TimesPrimaries prove Palin, Tea Party are for realCNN InternationalAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -New York Times (blog) -U.S. News & World Report (blog)all 5,096 news [...]

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    5:56 am

    Works for me…

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09/16/obama_reportedly_to_name_warren_special_adviser/

    President Obama plans to appoint Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren to a Treasury Department advisory post that will allow her to help create the consumer protection bureau, a key component of the new financial regulatory overhaul, without subjecting her to an arduous Senate confirmation process, according to a Democratic official.

    Warren will be an assistant to the president and a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, said the official, who was briefed on the president’s plans but spoke on condition of anonymity because the official announcement has not been made. She will report directly to the president and Geithner and lead the administration’s work on the bureau.

    @@

    September 16th, 2010
    7:00 am

    Geez!

    One-eyed trouser snakes and bearded clams!!??!!

    Well, there’s a man’s imagination, then there’s a woman’s.

    …he loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he………..

    Just kiddin’

    Normal

    September 16th, 2010
    7:22 am

    Grand morning to all y’all…

    USinUK,
    If you’re here, My sister had her surgery yesterday and all went really well. Her prognosis is great for a complete cancer free recovery!
    Life is good in Normalville.
    —————————————-

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    5:56 am

    Sounds like a good choice…

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    7:22 am

    the Washington Times…it seems to have a problem without a $35M infusion from its chief Moon.

    I hear the D-Backs are offering Mike Hampton and a box of jockstraps in trade for it.

    Bob

    September 16th, 2010
    7:25 am

    Well, this info means premiums will go down 18%, just like Obama said. Not really, but we are to busy still going after Reagan. When the fed employess, even those in the obama adni pay their back taxes, then we can talk about why paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do. Lets go ahead and raise them but if only privately employed people pay their fair share, we better raise them twice the amout needed to cover for the fed gov workers that do not pay theirs. Obama said the 2% tax cut on “lifes lottery winners” cost 700 billion over ten years, at 70 Billion a year, how will that reduce the 1.4 Trillion dollar debt, even if all gov workers paid their fair share, including Rangel, we still have a 1.3 Billion and change debt. Thats the “Laffer” about this argument that the 2% have caused our problems.

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    7:26 am

    Her prognosis is great for a complete cancer free recovery!

    Normal, having spent a few days attending to some difficult fambly biness myself, I say grab hold of any good news you can when you can.

    Bob

    September 16th, 2010
    7:27 am

    Oops, did I say still have 1.3 Billion, meant 1.3 Trillion.

    Carlosgvv

    September 16th, 2010
    7:30 am

    The number one job for the Republican Party is to protect Big Business at all costs. So, it’s no suprise that supply-side economics is a fundemental tenent with them.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    7:40 am

    Jay – If you feel that it is important to pay more in taxes to reduce the deficit, NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU FROM DOING SO. Why don’t you libs put your money where your mouth is and send in say, 50% of your income if you like high taxes so much?

    No Need To Thank Me

    September 16th, 2010
    7:42 am

    Give up while you are behind, Bob.

    No Need To Thank Me

    September 16th, 2010
    7:43 am

    Lead the way, vinny.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    7:45 am

    Once government proves that they will spend our tax dollars wisely and not waste them on things like tunnels for turtles and such, then we can talk about having more.

    Until then, they get no more. Government has proven time and time again that they will not spend our tax dollars wisely. Therefore, they are cut off from receiving more.

    The people control government, Jay – not the other way around. Got it?

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    7:52 am

    If you feel that it is important to pay more in taxes to reduce the deficit, NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU FROM DOING SO.

    Does this argument ever move anyone outside of Radio Wingnuttistan?

    Normal

    September 16th, 2010
    7:52 am

    Vinny,
    This “Lib” hopes that the complete Busch Tax Cuts expires without any comprimise made for the middle class. It will mean more revenue for the Government and hell to pay for the GOP come November…

    Normal

    September 16th, 2010
    7:54 am

    The corporations control government, Jay – not the other way around. Got it?

    Fixed your typo…

    Doggone/GA

    September 16th, 2010
    7:56 am

    “Does this argument ever move anyone outside of Radio Wingnuttistan?”

    No, but you have to remember that “rugged individualim” only applies to USING government provided services and things like roads, etc. – it doesn’t extend to actually helping to PAY for them.

    TaxPayer

    September 16th, 2010
    7:57 am

    I see Georgia’s unemployment rate is at 10 percent. Must be because of all those Democrats running the state. Yup. That’s gotta be it. Then again, it could be Obama’s fault for not stretching out those census jobs longer. Yup, That coulda done it.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    7:58 am

    Doggone – That argument will apply when 100% of workers pay their share of taxes. Until then, it’s just more liberal claptrap.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    7:59 am

    Normal (??) The libs are toast in November and Obama will be tossed out on his arse in 2012.

    Get used to it.

    Doggone/GA

    September 16th, 2010
    8:01 am

    “That argument will apply when 100% of workers pay their share of taxes”

    Since they already do, thank you for agreeing with me.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:01 am

    NNTTM – No, Libs should lead by example. If they think higher taxes are the answer to our problems, then they should step up and pay more.
    The Obama administration needs to pay up as well – a bunch of them are delinquent on their federal taxes. Is that any way to lead?

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    8:02 am

    Vinny, just what beyond the FICA/Med witholdings that begin with the first dollar, the excise taxes, and a bunch of other stuff beyond Federal Income Taxes that virtually every working person already pays, would you consider a “fair share” for America’s peasant class?

    TaxPayer

    September 16th, 2010
    8:03 am

    How come when our county government wants to increase tax revenues, they increase the tax rate? Now, ain’t that a Laffer. And the really disturbing part of that is that they all claims to be them conservatives here in the county that I lives in.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:05 am

    “Since they already do, thank you for agreeing with me” No, all people earning a paycheck DO NOT pay Federal income taxes – only about half do. Some of those that don’t pay federal taxes actually get some of the money that someone else earned (socialist income redistribution) through the EITC.

    You libs crack me up. Your ship i sinking – it’s time to bail.

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    8:05 am

    I also rather like the presumption that if you combined the value of those well-publicized tax scofflaw cases (your Rangles, your Geitners) together, you could pay for something beyond, say, a couple of Apache helicopter rotor blades.

    Soames

    September 16th, 2010
    8:07 am

    Jay,

    I have to disagree with you regarding the economic fallout (or lack thereof as you claim) post 9-11. Did you hapen to look at the NYSE for the year following the attack? To claim that there was no economic fallout associated with the 9-11 attacks is silly.

    Also, There is plenty of peer-reviewed economic science to support the assertation that tax cuts stimulate economies more than spending. Alesina did a study on 92 occurences since 1970 where countries tried to stimulate via spending and those attempts failed miserably. Running a defecit to attempt to stimulate the economy is the worst idea since the flobee haircutting system.

    If anyone is truly interested in learning more about this subject, I suggest you google the following items.

    Growth in a time of debt – Carmen Reinhart & Kenneth Rogoff

    The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks – Christina & David Romer

    Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending – Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna

    Jay would rather dazzle you with a few figures that support his stance rather than make a whole-hearted attempt to discuss this in length. I understand Bookman….you’re just feeding the masses via half-truths…kinda like those wingnuts you criticize.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:07 am

    sfb – If the Obama administration and the corrupt dems don’t have to pay their federal taxes, why should I?

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:10 am

    ” just what beyond the FICA/Med witholdings that begin with the first dollar, the excise taxes, and a bunch of other stuff beyond Federal Income Taxes that virtually every working person already pays, would you consider a “fair share” for America’s peasant class?”

    sfd – Everyone should have to pay federal income taxes to suppor our infrastructure. period.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:13 am

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    8:13 am

    If the Obama administration and the corrupt dems don’t have to pay their federal taxes, why should I?

    You know, that’s a great argument. Probably is, it didn’t work for me when I tried it after Bush administration officials had committed similar-scale scofflawin’…

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    8:15 am

    Everyone should have to pay federal income taxes to suppor our infrastructure. period.

    Of course they have already, every year that FICA ran a surplus for the trust fund.

    Face facts–this has to be the lamest argument righties have going. You really want to try to sell underpaid working Americans on the notion that they’re a bunch of tightwads and should be forking over more money in taxes so that the Paris Hiltons of this world can live a little higher? really? go for it!

    TaxPayer

    September 16th, 2010
    8:15 am

    Well, let’s hope that every time those Dems try to introduce legislation that cuts taxes, after the Bush/Republican temporary tax cuts expire, for the middle class, the Republicans stand their ground and not only say no but hell no. That’ll show us.

    stands for decibels

    September 16th, 2010
    8:16 am

    probably = problem @ 8.13.

    And I’d love to stay and watch righties concede Jay’s argument by distraction about sideshow issues, but other stuff awaits. Later, all.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:16 am

    sfd – “You know, that’s a great argument. Probably is, it didn’t work for me when I tried it after Bush administration officials had committed similar-scale scofflawin”

    b-b-b-b-b-b—-Bush! Great comeback, sfd. Never saw that one coming!

    Point being – if it’s not such a big deal if a few feds don’t obey the law, then it shouldn’t be a big deal if the rest of don’t either. Heck, lets all just cheat on our taxes and see what happens. No big deal -

    TaxPayer

    September 16th, 2010
    8:18 am

    Go for it, Vinny.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:23 am

    “You really want to try to sell underpaid working Americans on the notion that they’re a bunch of tightwads and should be forking over more money in taxes so that the Paris Hiltons of this world can live a little higher? really? go for it!”

    Typical Lib – demonize the rich at every turn. The heart really bleeds.

    Vinny

    September 16th, 2010
    8:24 am

    Taxpayer “Well, let’s hope that every time those Dems try to introduce legislation that cuts taxes, after the Bush/Republican temporary tax cuts expire, for the middle class”

    Are you serious?

    Normal

    September 16th, 2010
    8:26 am

    Vinny=Too much coffee on an empty stomach… :)

    Normal

    September 16th, 2010
    8:32 am

    Living in Woodstock, I’m surrounded by conservative, almost tea partyish, Republicans, and from talking to them, most have told me that if the Republican party keeps insisting on tax cut for the rich at the expense of them, then they would; One, not vote, or Two, vote Democratic as their “gotcha”. They see tax cuts for the rich as also filling the Congressmens pockets, too. One said, “It’s like voting for a pay raise, only they hide it better.” I think there might be a bigger surprise coming in November than one thinks…

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    8:35 am

    Yeah Vinny, nothing like your right to fight for serfdom. Have fun with that.

    JKL2

    September 16th, 2010
    8:43 am

    Obama’s hope for a new world government means we have to lower our average income per household to $14.4k. This will allow the Chinese to compete with us on an even basis. We don’t want to look greedy while their making us nike’s for $.50 a day.

    Now that’s change we can believe in!

    Doggone/GA

    September 16th, 2010
    8:44 am

    “demonize the rich at every turn”

    But you don’t seem to have any problems demonizing the poor. Seems to me the rich can afford to be demonized.

    TaxPayer

    September 16th, 2010
    8:47 am

    MaGog! Who’s demonizing the rich now!

    Serious about what, vinny.

    TaxPayer

    September 16th, 2010
    8:47 am

    Who would dare demonize those poor rich!

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    8:48 am

    JKL2,

    Yeah, nothing like real world facts there to base your argument on :roll:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    As Executor of my mom’s estate, I met with the local Probate judge who happens to be on of the most conservative yahoos in my area and he was telling me all kinds of ways I could not pay my mom’s debts, but could instead, pay a lawyer to try and fight those, which as I figured would cost more than the actual debt. I told him well, I could just pay the people who she owed money to instead of a lawyer and not have the year or two headache of working with him/her said lawyer. Funny reaction from said judge.

    So much for “libs” not wanting to be responsible, huh?

    AmVet

    September 16th, 2010
    8:50 am

    sfd – Everyone should have to pay federal income taxes to suppor our infrastructure. period.

    Agreed. And tell it to these “people”:

    The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

    More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

    During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion…

    Income redistribution UP the ladder, or as I correctly call it, welfare for the wealthy…

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    8:52 am

    AmVet,

    But, but, but those companies pay their employees such good wages, you know, $20000/year is alot! And they provide such good benefits for everyone like health insurance….oh wait.

    AmVet

    September 16th, 2010
    8:53 am

    You libs crack me up. Your ship i sinking – it’s time to bail.

    This after the cons lost 65 out of 71 contested races for high office in the past two elections. A combined 93% losing rate including a never to be replicated ZERO for 36 in 2006.

    How in the hell can a major American political party even pull off a clusterf&ck like that one?!

    By being that gawdawful abysmal, that’s how.

    You’d think these guys were the NY Yankees to listen to them though…

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    8:54 am

    AmVet,

    But, but, but the backlash is coming in November! And they have learned their lesson and they have come to Jesus and realized the error of their ways! :roll:

    Tools.

    TaxPayer

    September 16th, 2010
    8:57 am

    And all those companies probably do a most excellent job of sending out W-2’s and 1099’s and such just to make sure that all those individuals know how much they have to pay taxes on. Don’t no one tell that Kyle Wingfield fella about it though because I don’t know if he knows about all them 1099’s.

    USinUK

    September 16th, 2010
    8:57 am

    Normal – “Her prognosis is great for a complete cancer free recovery!
    Life is good in Normalville.”

    HOORAY!!! and hugs to you and your family – how wonderful!!! I’m just so pleased for you.

    I think I told you about my mom-stand-in who was diagnosed with leukemia about 6 weeks ago – her son is a strong bone-marrow match, so they’re starting that prep either this week or next … let’s hope the Bookmaniac winning streak continues :-)

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    8:58 am

    The cons crack me up giving the keys of the kingdom back to the ones who more than not helped trash the place based solely on misconstrued information to justify their prejudices.

    AmVet

    September 16th, 2010
    8:58 am

    Bosch, corporate welfare is larger than ALL of more than the money paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care).

    Yet the GOP’s fiscal liberals consider these utterly unnecessary entitlements, handouts, give aways and subsides all perfectly natural. But then they were gullible enough that they believed (and still do) in trickle-down as a viable economic model.

    And they and their families are the ones footing that bill. Which is more evidence that one has got to be pretty much near brain dead to be a con…

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    8:59 am

    Normal! Good news. I missed that post earlier! Good thoughts to your family!

    LeeH1

    September 16th, 2010
    9:00 am

    So, the Laffer Curve is really a hockey stick, like the gloabal warming graph? Has someone been manipulating the economic graphs for political purposes? If so, they should be investigated and prosecuted!

    USinUK

    September 16th, 2010
    9:00 am

    Bosch – 8:54 – never underestimate the power of the American Memory Hole …

    oy.

    JKL2

    September 16th, 2010
    9:02 am

    Bosch-
    I’ll give you props for your personal responsibility. Now if we could just get the government to do the same thing.

    Our socialist president campaigned on “redistribution of wealth’ (remember Joe the Plumber?). His close advisor Andy Stern says we need to unionize globally. That means we have to equalize with the Chinese since they make up 1/4 of the world population. The median income for this new world order in Obama’s socialist utopia is $14.4K per household.
    Quit being so greedy and start paying your fair share. The poor people of the world need your help.

    Doggone/GA

    September 16th, 2010
    9:02 am

    “American Memory Hole ”

    Hole? More like a CRATER!

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    9:03 am

    AmVet,

    Yeah, well, I’ve always considered giving money to kids so they can eat, and money to college kids so they can get educated a waste of time. I’ve always wanted my money to go to CEOS and wealthy shareholders so they can play more gold and vacation in the Caribbean — don’t worry, I’ll be willing to put in lots more hours and lower wages so they can do that. I mean, they deserve it right? They work harder than me, right?

    Tools.

    [Yall like my wingnut impressions today?]

    FinnMcCool

    September 16th, 2010
    9:04 am

    Elizabeth Warren for Prreznit 2016

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    9:04 am

    USinUK,

    For real, yo?

    JKL2,

    Again, nothing like reality to base your poutrages on. :roll:

    AmVet

    September 16th, 2010
    9:04 am

    Yes, when asked what the the lessons learned in the double decimation of the the 2006 and 2008 elections was, the fake conservatives respond, “We were not conservative enough!”

    Hence the birth of the astro-turfed, Republican-aborted tea party.

    It reminds me of that line in Dumb & Dumber when Lloyd says to Harry, “We’re in a hole and we’re just going to have to dig our selves out.”

    Normal

    September 16th, 2010
    9:04 am

    USinUK,
    We will keep your stand in mom in our thoughts and send her our good vibes! And thanks!

    USinUK

    September 16th, 2010
    9:05 am

    “Our socialist president campaigned on “redistribution of wealth’ (remember Joe the Plumber?). ”

    fairness /= redistribution.

    nice try. flail.

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    9:07 am

    USinUK,

    I missed that point to about your substitute mom — good luck to you as well. Positive thoughts going out…………NOW!

    jm

    September 16th, 2010
    9:08 am

    Elizabeth Warren would probably require herself to be addressed as “El Presidente”

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    9:08 am

    I meant to type “play more golf” earlier, but “play more gold” works too.

    USinUK

    September 16th, 2010
    9:08 am

    Bosch – 9:04 – as usual, the biggest problem with conservatives is that they vote against their best interests … they all think that ONE DAY, they’ll be rich, too!! (no, reeeeelly)

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/09/pumpkin_or_mincemeat_maybe_the.html#more

    lovelyliz

    September 16th, 2010
    9:10 am

    People who don’t believe in science and make-up their own economic theory, just don’t have much interest in math either

    USinUK

    September 16th, 2010
    9:10 am

    thanks, Bosch-man … I can’t wait to see her in a couple of weeks when I’m in town … love her so!

    (and, yes, I’m going to be in Atlanta the week of the 21st for the Crystal Hot Sauce and Biscuits Tour 2010)

    @@

    September 16th, 2010
    9:11 am

    jay’s pay must’ve been cut. He’s less productive of late.

    USinUK

    September 16th, 2010
    9:11 am

    lovelyliz – 9:10 – you missed Scout and chuckles in here yesterday making up their own history …

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    9:13 am

    USinUK,

    It’s because most of them are easily brainwashed and believe in mythology — the world was created in 7 days and one day Jesus is gonna come down outta the sky and take me up to heaven!! I mean, if you tend to believe that kind of stuff, you’re gullible enough to believe anything — like the POTUS before birth participated in a global conspiracy to hide where he was born just to carry out his quest for global domination. :roll:

    JKL2

    September 16th, 2010
    9:13 am

    bosch-
    Clinton admits that if the election would have been held a month later, he would have lost because the Bush Sr economy had recovered by the time he took office.
    Obama has said he want to redistribute wealth and radically transform America. Obamacare and taking over private companies “in the public interest” is just the start. If you think things are getting better under this administration you are just a lemming charging toward the cliff.

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    9:15 am

    Upstairs yall! Then I’m out for the day………

    USinUK

    September 16th, 2010
    9:16 am

    ahhhh … fresh Deal upstairs …

    Bosch

    September 16th, 2010
    9:16 am

    JKL2,

    Again, like any of that actually happened. Get a clue.

    jm

    September 16th, 2010
    9:17 am

    USinUK 9:08 – I’m of the opinion you’re wrong. They’re thinking is one step ahead of yours. They’re not voting against their economic interests at all.

    jm

    September 16th, 2010
    9:17 am

    @@ 9:11 – or slow news cycle.

    JKL2

    September 16th, 2010
    9:19 am

    USinUK

    Social Justice is not Equal Justice. MLK campaigned for equal justice. Our president does not.

    Don’t you have a riot you need to go to? We still have a couple years before we get to that over here, but we’re trying to follow your European model the best we can now the Demwits are in charge.
    California is the new Greece…

    JKL2

    September 16th, 2010
    9:24 am

    bosch-

    you have the time, so do some googling. It shouldn’t be too hard to find since it’s common knowledge and they don’t try to hide these facts.

    Enjoy some more koolaid, cause everything is rainbows and unicorns here in Obamaland.

    retiredds

    September 16th, 2010
    9:50 am

    Jay, when the Laffer Curve was touted by Reagan and company there were many of us in the financial world who looked at it and laughed so it became known as the “laugher” curve. It didn’t work back then, it doesn’t work today, it won’t work in the future … it’s a laugher. The main reason it doesn’t work is there is no control on the spending side of the ledger. And if the Republicans think that the Democrats are the culprit, go look at the record. The deficit that we have today is there because NO Republican or Democrat will cut spending. Oh yes, we will hear all sorts of pious statements about being the party of fiscal discipline and taxes being too high. It’s bull as it was then, and will be in the future. If you believe the Republican (and Tea Party) line on reigning in the deficit you believe in the tooth fairy and other mythical illusions.

    Michael

    September 16th, 2010
    3:49 pm

    History shows it wasn’t until the Republicans gained control of congress in 1995 that the economy really grew. The first two years after the Clinton tax increase, the economy grew at only 2 to 3 percent, inflation rose and the budget deficit was near $200 billion. The Republican congress brought fiscal restraint (slowing of growth in domestic programs and defense spending cuts), capital gains tax cuts, free trade promotion and welfare reform. This caused the budget surplus in 1998 and 1999, lowered inflation and a roaring stock market. These pro-growth measures by Clinton and the Republican congress cancelled out the tax hikes of 1993.

    buck@gon

    September 16th, 2010
    9:11 pm

    And during the Obama-Pelosi years private investment has grown by __________.

    –an inconvenient truth.

    buck@gon

    September 16th, 2010
    9:18 pm

    Jay,

    Even the CAP website indicates that tax policy may or may not be the answer to changes in revenue, investment and other economic indicators.

    Fortunately, I happen to know what is the solution to correcting the economy. 1) Repeal Obamacare. That 2000 page piece of legislation is largely an unknown commodity, and will require millions of pages of ink to establish actual policy and costs that are now entirely unformed.
    2) Don’t threaten cap and trade. Talk about costs! Cap and trade would be a disaster. Businesses are holding out to see what their crazy government is going to do next.

    Wayne Clemmons

    September 17th, 2010
    8:29 am

    Jay, slow down man! You’re killing em’ with logic and facts.

    [...] Bookman, at the Atlanta Journal Constitution did a very simple analysis of the benefits of Reagan-Bush style tax cuts. He compared the growth of investment and growth in [...]

    wellbasically

    September 17th, 2010
    9:19 pm

    Bill Clinton cut capital gains taxes from 28% to 20% (and to 0% on most homes) in 1997 leading to several boom years.

    Obama might raise the top income tax rate from 35% to 39% — whoop de doo. But he also wants to raise investment taxes from 15% to 39%, which will effectively kill off any investment from the top bracket, who are the only people who might have the money to invest.

    That’s what’s killing the economy. The way to raise wages and salaries is to more efficiently connect capital and labor. That is the essence of supply side economics, not “cut taxes”.

    James Bradley

    September 19th, 2010
    6:02 am

    Dot com boom. Period.

    Supply Side Does Not Work | luna-canus.com

    September 21st, 2010
    5:31 am

    [...] You can read the whole post here. [...]