Powered by TypePad

« Drill, Baby, Drill | Main | No Beatdown Like A Brit Beatdown »

March 30, 2010

Comments

Clarice

Iowahawk on the subject of repealing Obamacare:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/03/republicans.html

Clarice

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/03/republicans.html>retards

Janet

LUN is a good little article at Am. Thinker about the Dem/MSM manufactured crisis play. I wish the great "muddle" could SEE how they are being played and lied to.

Pofarmer

Hold on a minute.

My understanding is the this bill would affect about 80,000 to 160,000 people who have exclusions related to preexisting conditions.

Are you telling me we've brought this hell upon ourselves, for .005 % of the population, that ROTATES?

MikeS

Are you telling me we've brought this hell upon ourselves, for .005 % of the population, that ROTATES?

Yeah Pofarmer. There are actually many more people than that with preexisting conditions, but most of them are already being covered by our old health system.

glasater

Thanks Rick--

Here is a link to Boehner's report.

Whose comment reinforce your assessment:

The Associated Press reported today that private-sector employment remains weak:

“ADP said Wednesday that private employers slashed 23,000 jobs in March. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had forecast the report would show private employers added 40,000 jobs during the month.”


Analysts are expecting job gains from Friday’s employment report from the U.S. Department of Labor, but much of those gains could come from the temporary federal government workers being added to help conduct the 2010 census. Here’s what the experts are saying about the impact of temporary census hiring on Friday’s employment report:

• “The Labor Department’s report may exaggerate job creation … the government hired aggressively for the 2010 Census this month, adding as many as 100,000 temporary workers.” (New York Times, 3/31/10)

• “The number could be somewhat inflated because the government hired temporary workers to conduct the 2010 census.” (Associated Press, 3/31/10)

glasater

Thanks Rick--

John Boehner seems to reinforce your assessment:

“ADP said Wednesday that private employers slashed 23,000 jobs in March. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had forecast the report would show private employers added 40,000 jobs during the month.”


Analysts are expecting job gains from Friday’s employment report from the U.S. Department of Labor, but much of those gains could come from the temporary federal government workers being added to help conduct the 2010 census. Here’s what the experts are saying about the impact of temporary census hiring on Friday’s employment report:

• “The Labor Department’s report may exaggerate job creation … the government hired aggressively for the 2010 Census this month, adding as many as 100,000 temporary workers.” (New York Times, 3/31/10)

Second try.....

narciso the harpoon

Is there something in the water in this district, that also elected Cynthia McKinney

Pofarmer

Interesting OT.

I've been talking about Blain Luetkemier(no, I still ain't sure how to spell it), my U.S. House Rep. Well, before he took it, that seat had been Democrat held for something like 30 years. The filing deadline was yesterday, and, there's not a single Democrat running for that seat?????????

Pagar

If they need to raise the employment figures they Can

Doing actual work is not a requirement.

Janet

narciso, That link is unbelievable. I posted it on the Drill Baby Drill thread too. I just can't believe it...we are really doomed.

sylvia

"the number jumps to $750. That's starting to sound like a meaningful sum. But consider that the average yearly insurance premium for an individual policy is around $5,000."

I don't know where the writer got that idea. You can get insurance if you are young and healthy for about $100 to $150 a month. Especially if you are a male it's cheaper because they don't have the gyno issues, and I've seen some for about $75. The deductible may be higher though.

So a $750 yearly fine is about on track for buying individual coverage - on the cheaper end.

So my question is, if you pay the fine, what kind of coverage do you get? What kind of deductible?

sylvia

It's true that the preconditions may be over after one year. However, that's a problem for a lot of people. If you have some serious condition, a heart attack, diabetes, or even the flu, etc, and get seriously ill during that year, that could be hundreds of thousands you have to pay back. Some cannot survive a year without the coverage.

I think also some policies will take you with a precondition but raise the premiums by a lot. Or they might not take you at all if your precondition is too bad.

Frau Krankenschwester

Happy birthday, Mel. I wish you a year full of the best apples ever and wonderful music to listen to as you munch.

The Cato information is perfect. Thanks for the recommendation upthread.

Ann says Obama Sucks!

Happy Belated Birthday, Mel!

Hope you had a fabulous day.

Lee A. Arnold

Sylvia has it mostly correct, I think. At current U.S. levels of taxation, small changes in the tax rates have almost nothing to do with economic growth, one way or the other. Marginal income tax rates were as high as 70 or 90% after WWII with much higher GDP growth than we have seen in the last 30 years. More recently, the Bush Tax Cuts did not cause any more economic growth than might have occurred otherwise -- and most of it went into the financial bubble.

The idea that taxes hurt economic growth at anything near U.S. our levels of taxation is one-equation static economic analysis and it is nonsense. In the real world, government spending goes back immediately into the economy, raising the GDP, and suggesting places to innovate.

Except for a few short periods, such as in the Great Depression and now, there has never been a lack of money to invest in innovation and capital improvement.

Rich people pay higher INCOME taxes, but if you include ALL taxes, use fees, etc -- federal, state, and local -- then the U.S. tax system is almost FLAT, down to the top of the bottom quintile (about $20,000 a year.) In other words, just about everybody is paying the same percentage of their incomes for government.

matt

happy birthday, mel!

Pofarmer

Marginal income tax rates were as high as 70 or 90% after WWII with much higher GDP growth than we have seen in the last 30 years.

Well, golly gee whiz Delbert, I wonder how that could have happened?

More recently, the Bush Tax Cuts did not cause any more economic growth than might have occurred otherwise

Rich people pay higher INCOME taxes, but if you include ALL taxes, use fees, etc -- federal, state, and local -- then the U.S. tax system is almost FLAT, down to the top of the bottom quintile (about $20,000 a year.)

Cites?

Proof?

In the real world, government spending goes back immediately into the economy, raising the GDP, and suggesting places to innovate.

In the current real world, govt spending removes money from the private market.

Soylent Red

Government spending goes immediately back into the economy? You mean like TARP? Or do you mean like bank bailouts and government motors?

And just where in the f*ck do you think government gets its money? From the tax payer, that's who.

The tax payer who, if not under indentured servitude to the government, would spend that money himself, wisely, driving competition and creative destruction in the economy.

Government spending is the economic equivalent of a sugar rush, not actual economic nutrition. It has never worked as a long term solution, not even for Roosevelt.

Jim Ryan

That's all possible, Lee, but it's too much mere assertion and question begging.

Also, you say "flat" but that trades on an ambiguity. If it's flat in absolute amount, then that would indeed be just. But if it's flat in percentage, then one wonders, "So what?"

But I like that idea of Sylvia being right. Time was, when you never knew who was going to be right. Those were heady days.

Jim Ryan

Monty Python Flying Circus sketch: Guy dumps himself into his own Narcisolator. Wacky hijinx ensue.

Angela Light

Poor Obamao, no one believes his Elmer Gantry act anymore.

Maybe Bawny Frank will save his ass.

bgates

The idea that taxes hurt economic growth at anything near U.S. levels of taxation is one-equation static economic analysis and it is nonsense. In the real world, government spending goes back immediately into the economy, raising the GDP, and suggesting places to innovate.

That second sentence doesn't seem to depend on the bolded part of the first.

daddy

Well I'm not wishing Melinda a Happy Birthday because if she wanted to read my "Happy Birthday Melinda" she'd have to scroll down through about 80 comments by Sylvia and no Happy Birthday greeting is worth such punishment, so if anybody bumps into Melinda on another thread, please tell her I didn't wish her a Happy Birthday greeting but it was for her own good.

MaryW

Daddy,

killfile or the narcisolator(spelling)= the only way to cope with the sylvia's of the internet. I use both. narcisolator for the chronic troll and killfile for the satisfaction that comes when all the offending material disappears with just one click. It is the ultimate "I can't take it any more. You are gone." Of course you need to be using firefox.

squaredance

Here is your precious GOP taking a principled stand on Obamacare

As I said: Cowards and opportunists are what they are. Not one once of manhood in the lot.

Jane

This, from Gateway Pundit is positively delicious!

Old Lurker

Who knew Sylvia has a brother?

Pofarmer

Here is your precious GOP taking a principled stand on Obamacare

Well, Fuck.

That's the same weasley way Luetkemier was being the other night.

centralcal will not comply

Agree, Jane. It is what most of us suspected all along.

Jane

Ya know Centralcal from the start I have thought this is a very lazy man. I don't think he spends one second on anything that is not a photo op. I don't think he understands the issues or cares about them. He's just a big con man.

Janet

Yeah, Obama is a puppet...an actor. Not the brains behind the grift...just the front man.
He was groomed to play this part.
LUN is an old article from the New Republic on how he was steered to Wright's church too.
Get the book written.
Get him a teaching job.
Join a political church.

Porchlight

Well I am pretty ticked off at that GOP story. Some of it is probably spin. Cornyn is the only elected official quoted - I imagine there is an intraparty battle going on as to how to move forward. Hard to have much confidence in them, but if the bill is as big a disaster as predicted, all they have to do is ride the wave.

Jane, thanks for that Gateway link. Worth following the link to the Doug Ross article too. Wouldn't it be nice if we had an independent media that bothered to look into any of this stuff when a Democrat is running for office?

Clarice

Jane that's from a Doug Ross piece at the beginning of the month. I know Doug is right because I've heard this from others at the Univ of Chicago. Obama is 100% shuck and jive..And always was.

Clarice

Ras:Pres at -10 today.

Jane

Porch - shouldn't you be in labor?

I blogged the U of Chicago story at you too, also.

Clarice,

Are we on for the 14th?

narciso the harpoon

It all feels disturbingly like the Python 'deja vu sketch,' that extraordinary feeling
that you've been somewhere before, that extraordinary feeling. . .How is it Gallup
shows he's 'six compartment down' and yet
they are still acting like he's king of the world

Pagar

Janet and Jane, you've been putting up some good links, thank you.

I'm with those who think keeping the Obamacare bill in any form is wrong.

Clarice

Yes, Jane..email me and we'll work on the details.I assume you've been in touch with DACOR about checkin etc.

Ignatz

--Sylvia has it mostly correct, I think.--

I stand corrected. It is possible for an organism to be stupider than sylvia and still maintain bodily functions.

Rick Ballard

Glasater,

Thanks for the Boehner link. He appears to be getting ahead of tomorrow's "big story". GS lowered their estimate and the Cleveland Fed has a good "don't get your hopes up" piece for review. I believe the author could be somewhat more clear about what this means

Employers could potentially ask for more hours from their current employees before hiring new workers. The average weekly hours of production workers, which at 33.1 hours stands near its lowest-ever level of 33.0 hours, indicates that this is likely to happen. Similarly, part-time employees can be made full-time workers.
in terms of actual numbers. A one hour increase in the number of hours worked from its current close to historical low is the equivalent of 3-4 million jobs.

Boehner is quite correct to beat the "Where are the jobs you promised, you liar!" drum as loudly as possible.

Lee A. Arnold

Pofarmer: "Well, golly gee whiz Delbert, I wonder how that could have happened?" --Exactly.

"More recently, the Bush Tax Cuts did not cause any more economic growth than might have occurred otherwise."
Pofarmer: "Cites? Proof?"

Just about everywhere. There are no 2001, 2003 spikes in this graph, U.S. real GDP (black line):
http://img.skitch.com/20080421-n8rpi3wmn4e46eqstfarwud63n.jpg

The red line, "percentage changes," gets spikes due to ends of recessions, see for example the longer graph here:
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/images_lessons/808_em808_figure21.jpg

Bush Tax Cuts don't show results in this graph either, real GDP per capita:
http://www.acus.org/files/u3/USA-GDP-1810-2010.png

In fact, the Bush tax cuts prolonged the recession another year, because they weren't targeted to consumption. Tax cuts targeted for private investment don't work well in recessions, because existing manufacturing capacity is underutilized.

2007 Wall Street Journal reported CBO study that Bush Tax Cut stimulative effects (such as they were) had already piddled out:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/07/22/cbo-tax-cuts’-impact-has-faded/tab/article/

Here is my animation on the Bush Tax Cuts, finished in 2004:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1f2MefsMM

"the U.S. tax system is almost FLAT" --You better believe all taxes together make nearly a flat system. Almost everybody but the poorest of the poor pay about 40%:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx

Original NBER paper:
http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Does%20It%20Pay%20to%20Work%20and%20Save,%20December%209,2006.pdf

Pofarmer: "In the current real world, govt spending removes money from the private market." -- If you are referring to bailing out the crooks on Wall Sreet, the alternative was loss of payrolls and houses, and everybody in bankruptcy court for the next five years.

Soylent Red: "Government spending is the economic equivalent of a sugar rush, not actual economic nutrition. It has never worked as a long term solution, not even for Roosevelt." --Nonsense. Even military spending works its way back into private consumption and investment spending. In addition, military spending has led to lots of innovations for the consumer market. Example: the internet.

Bgates, you are right, they are two separate statements from basic economics.

MikeS

The polls are telling us that the sucking sound we hear is the ObamaCare bill. Who could have anticipated that people wouldn't want a bill to increase their healthcare costs, increase their taxes, and reduce the quality of their healthcare?

But wait. That's not all! Obama has plans to increase our energy costs while guaranteeing that, no matter how bad we want, a large percentage of us will never have to work again.

Rick Ballard

"Bush Tax Cuts don't show results in this graph either, real GDP per capita"

Oddly enough, a 200 year graph isn't fine grained enough to display anything of value regarding GDP per capita for a ten year period. According to BEA Chained Dollar GDP and Personal Income tables, GDP per capita grew by 9,8% from 2001 until the Job Killing Democrat majority was sworn in in January 2007. It has certainly declined since that date.

Want more free time? Elect a Dem and lose your job.

Dear Asolrod,

Please send better liars. Your current simpletons are just boring.

Rick Ballard

One last shot on tomorrow's labor report. I have no idea what the number will be but I'll wager $100 that it will not beat the March 2000 416K pop which enumerated the Census temps - "This included the addition of an estimated 117,000 temporary census workers." The projected Census total temp for 2010 is about 30% more than in 2000.

Jim Ryan

Lee has certainly presented sufficient evidence to conclude that the Keynesian multiplier is well above 1, while the Bush tax cuts had no stimulative effect on the economy. I doubt the Reagan tax cuts had any such effect either.

Also, we can tell now that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes, since they pay the same percentage as the middle class.

The lesson is that more money should be taken from the rich so that government can spend it to more economically beneficial effect. Tax rates for the rich should be increased for the sake of justice and prosperity.

Rick Ballard

JR,

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply seize all capital, feed the rich to the poor and then redistribute the capital on the basis of the degree of injustice felt by each individual? That seems the only just solution to me.

Jim Ryan

Rick, sure, as long as my feelings are the ones used to distribute the booty.

Old Lurker

Go to the head of the class, Jim. You learn quickly.

Clarice

I think it's time for a close look at untaxed and undertaxed professorial bennies; capping the salaries of movie , hip hop and athletic stars.

Rick Ballard

Another Grim Milestone

“The total cost of this has been significantly underestimated,” said Rogers, 62, also a director of U.S. health insurer Cigna Corp. “I don’t think corporate America totally appreciated that coming out of the gate there would be this increase.”

I doubt that either Gauleiters Waxman or "Baby Killer" Stupak will be amused by Mr. Rogers' blasphemy. I hope his papers are in order.

Ignatz

When asked for citations to support his contention that growth would have been the same with or without Bush's tax cuts, Lee supplies a graph which purportedly shows no spikes in growth, a CBO estimate made under a Democratic congress which claims there was a stimulative effect to the cuts and a claim that taxes overall are flat.
The lack of a spike even if accurate is non responsive. The value of higher growth is a cumulative trend not an observable temporary spike. You have presented zero evidence to support your assertion that the trend line of growth from 2003-2008 would have been at least as high without the tax cuts.
Your CBO cite, as you acknowledge, contradicts your assertion and the flat tax cite is a non sequitar.
You then follow up with three more unsubstantiated claims.
Thanks for the lessons, bud.

Elliott

I hope his papers are in order.

I expect his future is not in the ANWR Protection Battalion, but rather the Rio Grande Special Peacekeepers Executive.*
_________________
*Official motto: In Spe ("In Hope"). Unofficial motto: Unarmed is overwhelmed.

Lee A. Arnold

Rick Ballard: "Oddly enough, a 200 year graph isn't fine grained enough to display anything of value regarding GDP per capita for a ten year period... GDP per capita grew by 9.8% from 2001 until the Job Killing Democrat majority was sworn in in January 2007..."

--And grew three times as much under that job-killer Clinton. But oddly enough, the 40-year graph that I also linked to, shows the same point in undeniable detail. You mistake "coming out of a recession" with "additional economic growth."

Jim Ryan: "the Bush tax cuts had no stimulative effect on the economy. I doubt the Reagan tax cuts had any such effect either... The lesson is that more money should be taken from the rich so that government can spend it to more economically beneficial effect."

--Again, confuses "stimulus" with "real long-term growth," which was negligible. But even as stimulus, both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts "worked" by NOT reducing government spending: flooding the economy with dough while massively increasing the deficit. Reaganomics was (and still is) borrow-and-spend economics, or credit-card economics. Fool the rubes. George H.W. was right to call it "voodoo." Real long-term economic growth comes out of innovation, and that has mostly to do with education and just about zero to do with the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. ballpark. I'm no fan of government spending, but there's no doubt that a good government policy can reduce transaction costs (which is the Coasean analysis for the existence of any non-market institution, whether government or business firm,) and so may improve outcomes overall. That's why Hayek FAVORED universal healthcare in his book The Road to Serfdom. I really don't think government is ever going to get smaller, and there are formal reasons why, but if you think so, you might at least tell us what to cut, and get the Republicans to agree with you. Good luck, there.

Ignatz: "the flat tax cite is a non sequitar... Thanks for the lessons, bud."

--The flat tax cite was in response to another person's question, so the first lesson may be "How to Read." In that regard, in the CBO report, "stimulating aggregate demand" is actually DIFFERENT from "supply-side effects" (that is, changing long-term potential economic growth.) But Bush tax cuts = piddling, in both cases:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/01
/is_the_implemen_1.html

Now of course, the Bush tax cuts did have some real big effects. They shifted the tax burden to the middle class, AND they're the single biggest cause of the current budget deficits (second biggest: the Republican's Medicare Part D drug benefit, rammed through by curious legislative means in the dead of night, and NOT paid for.) I know you like to blame Obama for all this, but even the conservative and libertarian economists know better:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/
06/apportioning-blame-for-the-deficit.html

Soylent Red

Nonsense. Even military spending works its way back into private consumption and investment spending. In addition, military spending has led to lots of innovations for the consumer market. Example: the internet.

Way to rationalize the failed theories of JM Keynes by citing the wonders of the military-industrial complex, which I'm sure you rigorously hate like a good little moonbat.

Have you ever used a piece of equipment or software made specifically for the military? Obviously not.

I'm not talking about aircraft carriers and frequency hopping radios here, since I'm unlikely to own one of those in the near future. I'm talking about simple things that have had parallel development in the private sector like GPS receivers and performance clothing. Government versions of everything are invariably overpriced and underperforming.

But that's cool, says Big Gubmint. Version 2.0 will be much better, and only cost the taxpayer half again the cost of the original POS.

And the internet? POS too until it was opened up to the private sector to exploit for the purpose of amassing filthy lucre. Greater bandwidth and GUI browsers are but two examples of what privatizing did for the internet. Ask any of the old dogs who were around in the days when you actually had to know how to code to use the internet, and they'll tell you how far government control would have taken us.

And as for your citation of Hayek, are you talking about the Hayek that said

“But there are strong arguments against a single scheme of state insurance; and there seems to be an overwhelming case against free health service for all. From what we have seen of such schemes, it is probable that their inexpediency will become evident in the countries that have adopted them, although political circumstances make it unlikely that they can ever be abandoned, now that they have been adopted. One of the strongest arguments against them is, indeed, that their introduction is the kind of politically irrevocable measure that will have to be continued, whether it proves a mistake or not.”

Freidrick Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

I believe that last sentence is what really interests Progressives.

Soylent Red

you might at least tell us what to cut, and get the Republicans to agree with you.

Speaking for myself and nearly all Republicans, let's start with the Department of Education.

You're living proof it's not working.

qrstuv

The EPA next (or at least 90 percent of it).

Then the Department of Energy.

Then the DOT.

HUD.

Actually, I would keep the DOD. Not much else.

Pagar

The Real Barack Obama site has an excellent series on just how the Socialists in Congress were working to enact their agenda long before Obama got his Chicago roots firmly established.

Every program they and the Obama Administration is pushing, is designed to remake this nation in the image of Communist Cuba, to destroy our defenses and to insure the bankruptcy of the US, IMO.

JM Hanes

I always wonder where the dot.com bubble and 9/11 figure into progressive analysis of the "Bush economy."

Old Lurker

Exactly, JMH

RichatUF

JM Hanes-

Bush's fault.

Also, Lee it would help if your link supported your write up. The Marginal Revolution link was a mildly critical write up of a NYT article which affixed blame for the 09 deficit to Bush. And the first comment to the write up pointed out that Dems wanted a larger prescription benefit.

Curiously, they leave out the Pelosi Congress, the ones with the purse strings and Obama voted for TARP then asked then received from Congress the second traunch.

I'm thinking that DoT linked to a great article from Sowell about this very subject.

Rick Ballard

The best single year increase in GDP per capita in the past 30 years was 1984, the best eight year stretch ended in 1989, the worst single year performance was 2009.

But Clinton remains as the singular sack of impeached lying crap forever.

RichatUF

DoT linked this a couple days ago. "The way to reduce spending is to reduce spending..."

Ignatz

--And grew three times as much under that job-killer Clinton. But oddly enough, the 40-year graph that I also linked to, shows the same point in undeniable detail. You mistake "coming out of a recession" with "additional economic growth.--

This is fairly definitive on what happened under Clinton. Notice it is a link, not a URL. Try it sometime.

This addresses most of your criticisms of Bush's tax cuts, including this falsehood:
--Now of course, the Bush tax cuts did have some real big effects. They shifted the tax burden to the middle class--

I did miss Pofarmer's quote regarding the "FLAT tax" business. My apologies.

Regarding the effectiveness of tax cuts perhaps you could read this by Christine Romer, Obama's council of econ advisors chief and her hubby. They conclude that, while tax cuts are not effective at stimulating a recessionary economy they are very effective at stimulating an expanding one.
As Greg Mankiw points out here the assertion that tax cuts are not anti recessionary probably has more to do with untangling the opacity of statistics during recessions than any actual data.

MikeS


The ideas that tax cuts cost money, and that a bill with both spending and tax increases 'pays for itself' are ludicrous. Government spending is paid for by the taxpayers. Tax cuts don't cost the taxpayers anything.

DrJ

Real long-term economic growth comes out of innovation, and that has mostly to do with education and just about zero to do with the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. ballpark.

I shouldn't respond to this, but there is a lot behind these naked statements.

Yes, education matters a lot. This is not the same as holding a degree. I'd be pleased to hire someone with the skills I held as a high school graduate, but sadly, even the Batchelor's degree holders do not have the basics of these today. I have to teach them all myself.

I often read about how the BS degree mills provide "innovation" to the economy. My simple answer is "bullshit." I'd be happy if their graduates could properly make a chemical solution. As a rule, they cannot.

At the higher levels, there is a glut of degreed people. The success rate of funding research at NIH is about 20%. Much of this work is not great -- I have reviewed it -- but there are too many people chasing too few dollars. The answer is not to increase funding amounts. It is to cut back on the many marginal Ph.D.s that are turned out today.

And I will contest that the marginal tax rate does not matter much for investment into young companies. They do. Raise the rate, and the terms sheets become much more draconian, if one is offered one at all. And if one does reach a deal, you have to shoot for the stars to get your next financing round.

Practically, this kills the preponderance of young companies. Yes, many of these die anyway, but the numbers simply are not comparable.

If you disagree, please put your company credentials on the table. I'll be happy to do the same, but be aware that I have been in the small company trenches for 20 years now.

Lee A. Arnold

Hayek, via Soylent Red: " there seems to be an overwhelming case against free health service for all."

--And Obamacare is NOT free for all. The poor get subsidies. It is a moderate Republican bill, almost identical to Romneycare in Massachusetts. In other news, since almost everyone already knows that effective innovations from gov't labs (military, drug development in NIH, nuclear, whatever,) are put to work by being commercialized in the private sector, you don't seem to be following the argument. And since I am very much favor of a strong, predominating U.S. military, you are definitely not following the argument.

JM Hanes: "I always wonder where the dot.com bubble and 9/11 figure into progressive analysis of the "Bush economy."

--I think progressives understand economics as little as the people commenting here; I don't follow the progressives except to become annoyed; and I really don't know what they think... What I think is that the dot.com bubble was a cause of part of the Clinton boom, as the mortgage bubble helped make Bush look good (and before them, Reagan started the bubble method with a T-bill bubble. And Reagan began the Wall Street rip-offs, which always start by pumping-up the economy. by signing the deregulation of the savings and loans.) The last analysis I read figured that 9/11 dented the economy for about 6 or 8 months. The Bush tax cuts, poorly designed for a stimulus, extended the recession an extra 12 to 14 months.

RichatUF: "Dems wanted a larger prescription benefit."

--The Dems also wanted it PAID FOR. It was a Republican Congress and White House, and they hid the deficit estimates until after it was passed. I think they threatened to shit-can their Medicare actuary if he spoke out? I'll bet nobody here (except maybe Tom) was paying attention.

Rick Ballard: "The best single year increase in GDP per capita in the past 30 years was 1984..."

--Because it was preceded by the sharpest recession between the Great Depression and now. Here is the chart again:
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/images_lessons/808_em808_figure21.jpg

The recovery is usually proportionate to the preceding recession. If this loose rule stays true, then we are likely to have an enormous recovery ramping up, just in time to secure Obama's re-election.

Ignatz: "This is fairly definitive... This addresses most of your criticisms..."

--And they are exactly what we would expect Heritage to write. They are propagandists. Their business is writing phony white papers for the use of right-wing lobbyists. Should I quote left-wing propagandists to refute it all? Who cares?

Ignatz: "They conclude that, while tax cuts are not effective at stimulating a recessionary economy they are very effective at stimulating an expanding one."

--You got one correct! Just cross-out "very" and put in "may be." But it is wise to start reducing deficits while you do it, as Clinton did.

MikeS: "Government spending is paid for by the taxpayers."

And it goes right back to them, in the goods and services of national defense, retirement safety-net, etc.

DrJ, I think you are largely right. But name one good innovation that was prevented from a commercial start-up in a "normal" economic period.

I should stop, I have to go back to work...

Pofarmer

--And Obamacare is NOT free for all. The poor get subsidies. It is a moderate Republican bill, almost identical to Romneycare in Massachusetts.

Which makes me hate it even more.

The Bush tax cuts, poorly designed for a stimulus, extended the recession an extra 12 to 14 months.

What to hell are you talking about? How can people keeping more of THEIR money extend a recession?

bgates

In the real world, government spending goes back immediately into the economy, raising the GDP, and suggesting places to innovate.

Why not have government confiscate all wealth, then? It goes back into the economy anyway.

The kind of innovations that are suggested by government control are things that will gratify the whims of the fools in charge, like fluids to more effectively destroy engines in perfectly serviceable cars.

If you are referring to bailing out the crooks on Wall Sreet, the alternative was loss of payrolls and houses

I'll agree it's a good thing the bailouts kept us at full employment (+/- 6%), but where were the houses going to go? Were they going to be lost to everybody, or just to the people who couldn't (and can't) afford them?

The Dems also wanted it PAID FOR.

It's too bad all of those Dems vanished and were replaced with the uniquely fiscally irresponsible crooks running the party now.

Soylent Red

It is a moderate Republican bill, almost identical to Romneycare in Massachusetts.

Oooooh...I see. I just wasn't following the argument. Your love for Romneycare explains everything.

I thought you were making the case that a healthcare system should actually work and remain solvent. I see now that you're just in favor of entitlement plans in general, regardless of their outcomes.

My mistake.

And I could quote you more Hayek in direct opposition to government intervention in health care but you're more interested in making assertions that aren't borne out by facts. To make a claim that Hayek favored a heavy government hand in anything is ridiculous to the point of being obscene.

Pofarmer

I'll agree it's a good thing the bailouts kept us at full employment (+/- 6%)

Large error bands?

Pofarmer

Romneycare at work.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/04/health-care-price-controls-hit.html

Rick Ballard

"--Because it was preceded by the sharpest recession between the Great Depression and now. Here is the chart again"

You're really a rather pathetic liar. The economy had recovered nicely from the Carter/Volcker recession in 1983, 1984 was simply the strongest year in a string of stronger years which the "fabulous" '90's didn't touch, even though there was a downturn in '91. '93 and '95 were both very weak years in terms of growth in per capita GDP and it took the dotcom bubble to raise the '90s above mediocrity. That and the simple demographics which "created" the largest number of Americans ever to enter the prime earning years of 45-55.

bgates

Large error bands?

Not according to the materials in my correspondence course in statistics from East Anglia.

Pagar

Anyone interested in the economy and history might want to look at This time is different.

A whole lot of effort has been put into pointing out what will happen to us.

Jane

Betcha our Porchlight is having a baby....

Jane

Don't miss Rick's (that's right - our Rick)latest at You Too Congress!

Sins of Omission

Rick Ballard

I'm reworking the piece at the moment. It will be back shortly.

Rick Ballard

OK - it's back.

JM Hanes

Lee AA:

Frankly, I mostly listen and learn when it comes to economics, but this sounds suspiciously like Jobs-Created-or-Saved accounting.

JM Hanes

Lee AA:

Somehow the comment I was referring to above got lost in translation:

"The Bush tax cuts, poorly designed for a stimulus, extended the recession an extra 12 to 14 months."

Clarice

There's a new organization being formed, Crossroads America, which will involve Rove, Former RNC chair Duncan and which should eat the RNC's lunch. The New Ledger, the National Journal and the Washington Examiner have stories about it. If you are unhappy with the RNC and want to support Rep candidates move there.

I think big spenders are not good to lead the fight against, ahem, big spending, but I do not completely blame Steele for the organization's shortcomings. In my experience over time all big ops become sclerotic and need to be replaced by newer, leaner ones. I recall reading just yesterday that the DNC was attacking Congressman Dana Rohrback and making the mistake that he is a she...and that is also a big, well-funded op.

Creative destruction is needed not only in govt and business.

Jane

Got a link Clarice? I did a search and nuttin'.

Clarice

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/new_conservative_527_group_has.html>American Crossroads

Jane

Thanks Clarice - they need a website.

Ignatz

--And they are exactly what we would expect Heritage to write. They are propagandists. Their business is writing phony white papers for the use of right-wing lobbyists.--

That argument is an excellent logical fallacy but it is not a refutation of what they said.


--Should I quote left-wing propagandists to refute it all?--

You already did. Menzie Chinn and Peter Orszag et al are at least as partisan and in my experience less accurate than Heritage.

--I should stop, I have to go back to work...--

Back to the ol cartoon, eco-langugage salt mine, eh? Yes that Heritage certainly is a propaganda outlet. (click on his name if anyone wants to know what Lee is all about; insert eye rolling icon here)

BTW do you read any of the links you provide? The econbrowser one refuted your own contention and the link it provided did even more strongly.


Pagar

DNC spends thousands on Pole Dancers

Why would anyone donate to an organization that promotes laws saying they are entitled to take your money because you have it and they want it?

Clarice

Jane, I'll bet they will soon have one..

RichatUF

Lee-

Good grief. If you wanted to link to a NYT article blaming Bush you should have done so directly not put in a link mildly critical of the NYT article (they were critical of the graphic).

And they NYT article isn't all that informative:

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

So Leonherdt used the ridiculous 10 year CBO projects from Clinton's last year in office ("surpluses as far as the eye can see" while the NASDAQ was dropping more than half) and in a straight line make comparisons-after the tech and telecom bubble popping, after the housing and finance bubble popping and TARP, after 9/11, after the Afghanistan and Iraq War, after the 04 Florida Hurricane season, after Katrina...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame