Hey, We've Got The Lowest Consumer Confidence Since The First Bush Administration!

Consumers are hurting these days and they haven’t hurt this bad since Papa Bush was in office way back in 1992.

The New York-based research group Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped to 50.4 from a revised 58.1 in May. The reading was the lowest since February 1992, when it was 47.3.

Economists had expected the index to decline to 56, according to Briefing.com.

Because I accidentally and stupidly made this political by mentioning that dreaded “B” word, here’s what your two presumptive presidential candidates (well, actually it was just their campaigns) had to say about the numbers. We’ll leave it up to you to guess whose campaign said what (or you could just read the CNN article):

Potential President X: “We know that the public has been concerned and regardless of whether the geeks in the world think there’s a recession or not, the public feels like that.”

Potential President Y: “The disappointing consumer confidence numbers are yet more evidence that we need a change in our economic policy.”

Consumer confidence tumbles to 16-year low [CNNMoney]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. m1k3g says:

    Obviously idiocy runs in the family. Bush Sr may not have been quite as stupid as W, but he was close.

  2. Tmoney02 says:

    I guess history really does repeat itself….

  3. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot says:

    Stupidity breeds stupidity…I doubt anyone’s surprised with that rating.

  4. mac-phisto says:

    “Perhaps the silver lining to this otherwise dismal report is that Consumer Confidence may be nearing a bottom,” Franco said in a statement.

    ok, so let me get this straight. you thought it was going to bottom out at 56. we’re at 50. & the good news is that there’s hope that this might be the bottom b/c the numbers blew past your estimate?

    for some reason my confidence in your confidence has declined significantly.

  5. Bladefist says:

    I’m going to guess that McCains lobbyist told him to say:
    “We know that the public has been concerned and regardless of whether the geeks in the world think there’s a recession or not, the public feels like that.”

    And Obama’s teleprompter told him:
    “The disappointing consumer confidence numbers are yet more evidence that we need a change in our economic policy.”

    Then nobody asked for details for Obama’s plan, because I think we all agree, he has no clue. It just sounds good, and makes people faint.

  6. PunditGuy says:

    @Bladefist: Google is your friend. [www.barackobama.com] You can keep repeating that he has no plan, though — that’s good for a laugh.

    For equal time’s sake: [www.johnmccain.com]

    I report, you decide.

  7. Juggernaut says:

    Change! Damnit we need a change! A change is what we need! I think we need to make a change… We need to go ahead and make a change. Why? Because a change is what’s called for, damnit!

  8. Ein2015 says:

    “All of this happened before and it will happen again.”

  9. freejazz38 says:

    and idiot peabrains voted for BOTH of the douchebags. And there are STILL morons in this country who support them.

  10. Ein2015 says:

    (In reference to previous quote.)Sorry got the quote wrong… it’s this: “All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.”

  11. friendlynerd says:

    @Bladefist:
    We don’t all agree. Just for the record.

  12. Bladefist says:

    Oh, and I’m 100% sure that CNN fairly picked that statement from McCain. Because they would never be biased and try to make him look bad. Because CNN is reputable.

  13. hi says:

    They’re two sides of the same coin.

  14. What exactly is this measuring. Consumers confidence in the goods they buy? Cuz if they’re shopping at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Circuit City, it’s understandable why their confidence is down.

  15. Myrddraal says:

    “The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the W Bush Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose…. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of time.
    But it was a beginning.”

  16. Bladefist says:

    @PunditGuy: Let me translate that page for you:

    We’re going to tax our way out of half of the problems, and then for the other half, Wealth Redistribute.

  17. Kat@Work says:

    @Ein2015: So say we all.

  18. HIV 2 Elway says:

    Well people, get out there and start spending.

  19. Wormfather is Wormfather says:

    I just dont know what to do with this election.

    I typically lean to the right, but McCain makes me want to cry. Obama, he motivates me, to do what, I dont know, change? But I’m not a fan on taxing the oil companies record profits (because they have record expenses also).

    McCain admits he has no idea what he’s doing when it comes to economy issues. Obama wants to socialize health care, i.e. like 20% of economy.

    Obama looks like me, but then again so did the guy who mugged me.

    So confused.

  20. humphrmi says:

    Wow, McCain … eh, ahem, I mean “Candidate X” actually called economists “Geeks”? His respect rating with me just went up a couple of notches.

  21. HIV 2 Elway says:

    @Juggernaut: “We need some change, bro, we need a change in fucking candidates.”

    Part of the greatest* anti-Obama drunken rant I heard this weekend.

    *racist, irrational, nonsensical but totally entertaining.

  22. kcrusher says:

    @Bladefist:

    So you don’t like Obama’s plan, eh? What would YOU propose? How do you pay debt without income? How do you gain income without tax?

    Obama says – let’s tax the people that can afford it (the wealthy) and give tax breaks to those who can’t (lower income people). Let’s also cut tax breaks to companies who are making windfall profits (Exxon with $54 BILLION in profits paid only 11% of that in taxes – why do they only pay 11% when I pay close to 30%??). He also wants to give tax incentives to renewable energy research.

    McCain says – let’s keep giving tax breaks to the wealthy (who have a surprisingly good record at keeping that money to themselves) and do nothing for the lower income folks. And also continue to give tax breaks to oil companies, expand drilling, etc. – how does that help us? McCain also voted to end tax incentives for renewable energy.

    Now, given that, please explain how Obama’s plan doesn’t make just a *little* more sense, because I’d really, really like to hear how you’re justifying your position.

  23. Techguy1138 says:

    The first Bush was pretty good with the economy. He was able to deftly deal with the train wreck that Regan left. He decreased spending from year to year and increased taxes.

    He was if not a fiscal conservative, at least a fiscal centrist. Clinton continued almost the same fiscal policies and after nearly a decade the country began a rebound… Then W came along. I do not like fiscal radicals in Republican clothing.

    As the article goes I do feel the national economy is slowing. The resources that could be devoted to helping America solve our issues are being dedicated to Iraq. I feel that we are really in trouble because of our limited ability to affect domestic priorities at this point.

  24. chiieddy says:

    It was pretty easy to guess the quotes based on which campaign would use the term ‘geeks’ in speaking about potential constituents and which would talk about ‘change’.

  25. blong81 says:

    Maybe the policy itself is the reason why our economy sucks?

    I bet nobody thaught of that one, huh?

  26. HIV 2 Elway says:

    I think someone broke the internet, call Al Gore.

  27. Techguy1138 says:

    @Bladefist: So the solution to a budget crisis is perhaps issue more credit? The budget hole that we have gotten into in the last 8 years can not be dug out of by spending cuts alone unless the US liquidated it’s standing army.

    Poor decision making has left taxation coupled with service and spending cuts as the only reasonable way to shore up the economy. The amount of debt acquired eliminated the normal possibilities of infrastructure improvement, even though it’s required.

    Less revenue and more spending aren’t the answers to the current economy.

  28. Bladefist says:

    @Techguy1138:

    Less revenue and more spending aren’t the answers to the current economy.

    Then how do you feel about adding universal health care and cutting taxes?

  29. Bladefist says:

    @kcrusher: I wrote a massive response to you, and consumerist somehow screwed up and it didn’t post. Can’t do it again. sorry :(

  30. parad0x360 says:

    @Bladefist: That would be a funny comment except Obama has a plan, try visiting his website…it should take 30 seconds to find the info.

  31. cmdrsass says:

    There was no need to identify the candidates. If the quote contains either the words “hope” or “change”, it must be from Obama. Bonus points if it contains both.

  32. Bladefist says:

    @parad0x360: If you read above, I already visited his site, and translated his economy plan for you.

  33. parad0x360 says:

    @cmdrsass: If it contains “Terror”, “War” or “I dont know” then its McCain!

  34. @Git Em SteveDave has a crush on the Swedes: That would be consumer confidence in the idea that they can just spend money and not have to worry about still having a job next month.

    @Bladefist: Again with the boilerplate. Repeating the same tired old crap over and over makes you sound like you don’t have an original thought of your own in your head. Despite what you were told in propagandist school, repeating bullcrap doesn’t make it into something other than bullcrap.

  35. Balisong says:

    @parad0x360: But it’s so much easier to just complain that he doesn’t have a plan! It’s also fun to say he’s a muslim terrorist. He eats babies, too.

  36. jackal676 says:

    @Bladefist:
    Aww, that’s a real shame.

  37. HIV 2 Elway says:

    Giant douche or a turd sandwich.

  38. Bladefist says:

    @Steaming Pile: They’re all my thoughts. I went to a liberal public school just like the rest of you. Just because you don’t like my ideas doesn’t mean I’m a zealot.

    You are quite typical yourself. It’s the same old arrogant socialist tactics. You must be trai_deps other half.

  39. @Bladefist: What was Bush’s economic plan again? Something like tax cuts and lax regulation drive spending and investment?

    If you take the reins off the horses, the cart will move faster? (No, obviously the horses will move faster and leave the cart behind. Oooh I like this analogy.)

  40. Bladefist says:

    @Michael Belisle: I love it when people try to go after me for supporting a guy I’ve never supported. Hey why don’t you make fun of my best friend Brad Pitt, and my gf, Uma Thurman.

  41. jscott73 says:

    @Balisong: Mmmm, babies, get in my belly…

  42. @Bladefist: You mean you thought up that tripe all by yourself? Are you sure Rush Limbaugh didn’t put those words in your mouth, because you sure sound like him.

    And as for the ‘arrogance,’ isn’t that just the 2008 version of ‘hate filled rhetoric?’ You see, that kind of stuff makes my BS meter go all the way to 11. I’m sorry, but when you serve up the same 80 MPH fastballs every single time, I just gotta swing at ‘em, even on 3-0.

  43. cmdrsass says:

    @parad0x360: I’m not familiar with that particular drinking game!

  44. savvy999 says:

    consumerist is really quite sucking lately, regarding technical quality. 3 times now I’ve tried to post in this thread, it’s borked.

  45. Since everyone is bashing Bush’s tax cuts (which had to be approved by congress, and were) it’s my turn to add some indisputable facts.

    Lower taxes means INCREASED REVENUE.

    Raising taxes means DECREASED REVENUE.

    Lowering taxes across the board gives the greatest increase in revenue, period. Yes, the rich get the biggest tax cut in terms of actual dollar amounts, but that is because they pay the most in taxes to begin with.

    If you raise taxes, regardless of which income bracket you do it to, you will DECREASE REVENUE.

  46. savvy999 says:

    @savvy999: but that one worked? whatever… done for the day here.

  47. ElizabethD says:

    No more graduated income tax!!!! Let those rich people feel a little pain. (Not that they would *really* feel any pain.)

  48. @Bladefist: Am I in the wrong room? I thought we were discussing Bush I and II.

    Oh I see now that we’re discussing Bush III and Carter II. My bad.

  49. friendlynerd says:

    @savvy999:
    My friends did that in college once during the state of the union speech. Anytime Bush said “freedom” or “terror” they had to drink.

    They didn’t go to class the next day.

  50. petrarch1608 says:

    great! another useless consumerist post to stir up the trolls! /sarcasm

  51. kcrusher says:

    @Bladefist:

    Ah – how convenient! That always seems to happen when people have no real good argument to back up their assertions. Funny how that works…

    As for this – “It’s the same old arrogant socialist tactics”

    Please! You’re killing me! Socialist? Um, so what about the highway system, or the police or fire departments, or public education, unemployment or disability insurance, medicare, medicaid, the FDA, FCC, NASA and so on. These are socialist programs, but they are there to benefit ‘the people’.

    You give when you can and you take when you need to. To think that ‘every man for himself’ is the way to go is arrogant and irresponsible beyond belief. Some ‘socialist’ type programs are necessary – and beneficial – to our security and prosperity. To lump all of them together is the mark of someone who has no understanding of nuance – much like our current president. And for his foolishness we Americans will pay the price.

    FWIW – universal healthcare has been shown in study after study to actually IMPROVE healthcare and REDUCE costs to society as a whole. You may want to, you know, read some facts rather than the blarmy propaganda that gets spread by vested interests in the immense profits that ‘healthcare’ companies currently reap.

  52. Trai_Dep says:

    @Bladefist: The GOP wholeheartedly supported more warrantless spying and telecom immunity: 99.5%, to be exact. You must be talking about the “other” GOP. Hmm?

    The sad difference between poppa Bush and his son is at least the elder one realized that you can’t live off a credit card forever. Yet the True Conservativesâ„¢ castigate Sr for recognizing this simple fact. Ironic on this site of all others, some don’t realize this.

  53. Xerloq says:

    @parad0x360: I think people know where to find the plan. The question is, do you know what it is? Because up till now it sounds like, “I don’t know what the plan is, I’m sure there is one, but you have to find out for yourself.”

    I’m with Bladefist on this.

  54. erratapage says:

    Increasing taxes means decreased revenue for companies (and individuals) and more revenue for government.

    Decreasing taxes means decreased revenue for government and more revenue for companies (and individuals).

    As a mostly non-partisan person, I just want the next president to be able to accurately deliver what a somewhat literate person gives him in the form of notes, cue cards, or a teleprompter.

    Yes, it’s true, my vote will be based on relative coherence, since I think the strategies of both parties are flawed.

  55. Bladefist says:

    @kcrusher: A lot of other people have lost their comments too. Don’t be a dick.

    @Trai_Dep: lol why do you still talk to me?

    @Steaming Pile: You resort to personal attacks whenever you cant beat my points. I’ve noticed this about you. Chalk up another win for me.

    @Michael Belisle: You’re wrong. We’re bashing McCain. I’m bashing Obama. Some people are Bashing me :)

  56. @Bladefist: And another thing, just to keep you busy until AtomicPlayboy arrives: neither candidate has a plan. Candidates have ideas and make promises. They’ll appoint people to make the plan. Those people will wrestle with the agencies and congress to implement some ideas.

    So a candidate with direction is good enough for me. Because nobody’s “plan” is going to happen.

  57. HIV 2 Elway says:

    The FDA and NASA are a joke. How many people have been killed by the FDA’s insistence on cover their own asses and preventing drugs’ release to market?
    The great scientific achievements were not the result of bureaucratic institutions; they were the result of an entrepreneur motivated by incentives. Compare the achievements of a guy like Ford or Edison to that of NASA. The acomplishments of the individual are amazing.

  58. Parting says:

    @Bladefist: Universal health care costs less than semi-private mess. Just compare spending per person in countries like Canada (plus Canada has only 1/10th USA’s population, so in theory, Canada should be paying MORE per person than USA).

    Funnily, it’s Republicans who raised USA’s debt enormously. But I’m not complaining, from Canadian point of view (economy), we’re better off with Republican government in USA; since Democrats are more protectionist of USA’s internal market.

  59. kcrusher says:

    @erratapage:

    Word! Having someone who doesn’t act like your average drunk frat boy would be a welcome change.

  60. HIV 2 Elway says:

    A wise man once said:

    I have little patience with those who concoct fancy and plausible schemes out of thin air. Ignoring the lessons and experiences of the past, and who because they are convinced that existing methods and systems are imperfect, conclude that any change, no matter how ill-conceived or ill-founded, would be an improvement
    -Harry Truman

  61. SkokieGuy says:

    Hasn’t Bush the elder’s silence during his son’s Presidency deafening?

    It’s tradition that a former President does not comment negatively about a sitting President. Yes, Jimmy Carter broke the gentleman’s agreement.

    So when Bush Jr. is getting relentlessly and deservedly flogged, why does his Father (and Mother) remain largely silent? Is it because they cannot think of anything positive to say?

    Is it because they are slightly higher on political moral ladder (a totally ficticious concept) and they cannot stomach spewing the spin and lies trotted out by others lamely trying to prop up a failed reputation?

    Would you expect that he’d be on the daytime talk shows and Larry King, doing press and interviews and supporting his kid’s Presidency. Why the silence?????

  62. Myrddraal says:

    Let’s face it neither the Dem’s nor the Rep’s have done a good job in fact the American system of government has always been degenerated by playing to the fears and prejudices of a generally ignorant and uncaring public.

    Congresses approval rating is at an all time record low as is Bush’s. That means that nobody is doing a good job. The population is more apathetic then ever.

    The American Empire is on its inevitable decline. It happened to Egypt, Greece, Rome, Mongolia, Britain, Germany, Japan, ect. Are we to believe that it won’t happen to us? Our system is so corrupt that it can’t adapt or change without massive upheaval. It is only a matter of time before another nation reaches primacy.

  63. Bladefist says:

    @Michael Belisle:
    “And another thing, just to keep you busy until AtomicPlayboy arrives:”

    Why would you say that?

  64. mikelotus says:

    @Bladefist: guarantee your next president (Obama) has more of a clue than a Bush or McCain. Why would anyone in their right mind vote Republican after 8 years of disaster?

  65. mikelotus says:

    @m1k3g: Actually I would say that his father is much smarter. Would not have had us in Iraq. I think the stupidity gene gets worse with each generation. Jeb stupider than dad. George stupider than both and their kids? Well at least they are girls so they can get married because that will surely be their highest achievement in life.

  66. Elcheecho says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: I don’t think that’s right. Source please? Here’s mine: CBO: “Even in the paper’s most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates.”
    [en.wikipedia.org]

  67. HIV 2 Elway says:

    Some economists, some, argue that our higher health care costs per person are indicative of our superior quality of life. The fact that we spend the most suggests that we not only have the best treatments but also have the available income to spend on said treatments.

    I’m not saying that line of thought is right or wrong, just stating that not all economists see our high health care costs as a problem.
    /second try

  68. AaronZ says:

    To quote @Bladefist quoting Homor Simpson:
    “Everyone’s stupid but me.”

    (Well, everyone but him and the genius in the White House that got us into this situation in the first place.)

    The solution also comes from the simpsons (when digging a really deep hole)
    Homer: “How do we get out?”
    Chief Wiggum: “Dig *up* stupid!”

  69. HIV 2 Elway says:

    @mikelotus: That was the most comment I’ve read all day.

  70. Bladefist says:

    @mikelotus: Bush nor McCain are truly republicans. They run for the Republican party, but if you compare them with the ideals of republicans (Can be found on wikipedia), you’ll see they are not.

    So to answer your question, in this election, you wouldn’t. But I’m not going to abandon my ideals because of a couple people who didn’t stick to their promises.

  71. Bladefist says:

    @mikelotus: Also, with regards to Obamas military experience (none), senate experience (almost none), economic experience (none), and his foreign policy experience (worse then none),

    I find you wrong. You may not like Bush, or his policies, but he knows how the world works.

  72. @Bladefist: You looked like you had attacks coming for all directions here. I tried to think of some other vocal conservatives that might show up to handle some defense for your team, but AtomicPlayboy was the only one that came to mind.

  73. HIV 2 Elway says:

    @mikelotus: No that was the most comment of the day.

  74. kublaconsumer says:

    The real solution is for Uncle Sam to tax the economic fat cats at about 90% and use the funds for giant hydroelectric projects, national park lodges, and a huge moon base.

  75. mikelotus says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: of course that has been demonstrated to be a crock of shit many times over (at least at our current tax rate). In fact if you look a the Laffler curve, we are past the peak and have a rate well to low to maximize revenue. Revenues have declined big time, that is why we have such a huge deficit.

  76. mikelotus says:

    @SkokieGuy: He does like to hang with Bill Clinton though.

  77. Bladefist says:

    @Michael Belisle: I’m okay. I remain calm, objective, and know the facts.

    @mikelotus: I was listening to an interview with Obama once, and they were asking about his experience in several of the fields, and he talked about some of the courses he took in college. I actually did rofl. I think I shot milk through my nose. Running for president, national interview, and he cites college courses. Is he running for President of America or President of the Boys Glee club?

  78. Elcheecho says:

    @mikelotus: Hey now that’s not very nice. You should be ashamed, talking about people’s kids like that and you don’t even know them. We’re not on junior high anymore.

  79. kcrusher says:

    @Bladefist:

    All the time you spend on name-calling and typing non-substantial replies could be spent writing something that supports your point of view.

    As for losing comments – simple solution, just copy your text to the clipboard before hitting submit. Given how much ANY website gaks, this should be common practice by now.

  80. mikelotus says:

    @HIV 2 Elway: Which economists are those? The only thing that counts is the results of our health care and they are not the best.

  81. kcrusher says:

    @HIV 2 Elway:

    The FDA and NASA may be a joke (though I would disagree, at least in the case of NASA – there are some engineers there that make Ford’s accomplishments look like childs play), but you’re forgetting that ANY organization is only as good as the sum of it’s parts.

    As for the FDA – yeah, it’s messed up, mainly because the same people who used to work for the drug companies now head up the organization. Vested interest, if you will.

    Edison stands in category all his own. With that I cannot argue.

    My point isn’t that one or the other is better, but that we sometimes *need* community organization – how would the highway system have been built if it depended on one person?

    Personally I’m more for locally organized systems, but the guv keeps getting in the way there, too. Look at how CA wants to regulate their own greenhouse gasses, but the guv keeps saying they can’t! What happened to ‘state’s rights’?

  82. mikelotus says:

    @Bladefist: Here you go Bladefist. One is considered our greatest president and one is considered our worse until now. Please relate to us the correlation between experience (one was incredibly well experienced) and how effective of a president they were.

    [en.wikipedia.org]
    [en.wikipedia.org]

  83. kcrusher says:

    @Myrddraal:

    “The American Empire is on its inevitable decline. “

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  84. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    @mikelotus:
    “Why would anyone in their right mind vote Republican after 8 years of disaster? “

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.

  85. HIV 2 Elway says:

    @mikelotus: Dr. Stephen Pruitt for one, I admit my bias towards him as he’s had a profound impact on me.
    Also, be careful how you define best. Does best mean most advanced treatment or most readily available? The two are not one in the same.

  86. Ubik2501 says:

    @Bladefist: Except most people try to repost their comments so they can contribute their input. You, when presented with the opportunity to give us any sort of substantiation of your constant snipes, say “Oh, whoopsy-daisy! System ate my post! Too bad, I can’t repost so I get a free pass, time to move on, these are not the droids you’re looking for.” Which just smacks of troll, or at least of somebody without a well-reasoned argument.

  87. jscott73 says:

    “All the world’s a stage, And all the politicians merely puppets”

    The whole frigin’ system is broken, I supported a ban against voting for a long time but have since decided to at least register as a Decline to State voter so I can vote on local issue.

    I don’t like having to register at all, it gives the whole process an air of credibility which I don’t believe exists.

    We are more dominated by capitalism then by democracy so whoever has the most money wins, and I’m not talking about the politicians.

  88. @Elcheecho: @mikelotus:

    I have three examples-taken from here-
    [www.heritage.org]

    “The tax cuts of the 1920s
    The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

    The Kennedy tax cuts
    Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

    The Reagan tax cuts
    The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.”

    The Bush tax cuts-

    [www.heritage.org]

    The reason the deficit is higher is because of increased government spending, not because of decreased revenue, as the numbers clearly indicate.

  89. Gann says:

    @Myrddraal: Truest comment yet.

  90. mikelotus says:

    @Elcheecho: I do know that one GW daughter tried to use a fake ID in Austin as if no one would know who she was. And Jeb’s daughter tried to use a fake prescription for Xanaz in Florida as if no one would know who she was. Can you get any dumber than that?

  91. phelander says:

    @Bladefist: You’re even more ignorant than W if that’s possible. I’ll still be nice to you when the Repuke’s get their asses handed to them in November, because I don’t pick on the mentally handicapped, unlike W who executes them. By the way, how does it feel to be wrong for 8 years? Everything the Repups touched went to shit. That’s reason enough to never believe or read a goddamned thing you ever post.

  92. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    @mikelotus: Excellent point. Part of our problem in the US is “lifetime” politicians.

  93. mikelotus says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: Heritage Institute, now there is an unbiased source for you. What does the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office say?

  94. HIV 2 Elway says:

    @kcrusher: Something my aging boss always tells us (I work in R&D):
    “You can’t legislate innovation.”

    I think there is a lot of truth to that. NASA has made outstanding advances but I think we would have seen greater advances for less of a cost if they were done privately. When money is just thrown at a problem is when we see the greatest amount of waste.

    To deviate a little, I think we’re at a similar point with our autos. A few years back Congress wanted to mandate that manufacturers have a percentage of their fleet above some mandated mpg limit. So sure, the manufactures would have gotten there. But now, that the people demand efficient cars not only are auto makers going to go far above any mandates Congress would have imposed, they are going to do it quicker and going to compete against each other for the most efficient autos. And why, not because of legislation tried to push innovation, because there is a market for it.
    /steps off soap box

  95. HIV 2 Elway says:

    Something my aging boss always tells us (I work in R&D):
    “You can’t legislate innovation.”

    I think there is a lot of truth to that. NASA has made outstanding advances but I think we would have seen greater advances for less of a cost if they were done privately. When money is just thrown at a problem is when we see the greatest amount of waste.

    To deviate a little, I think we’re at a similar point with our autos. A few years back Congress wanted to mandate that manufacturers have a percentage of their fleet above some mandated mpg limit. So sure, the manufactures would have gotten there. But now, that the people demand efficient cars not only are auto makers going to go far above any mandates Congress would have imposed, they are going to do it quicker and going to compete against each other for the most efficient autos. And why, not because of legislation tried to push innovation, because there is a market for it.
    /steps of soap box for second time, shakes fist at Gawker server

  96. HIV 2 Elway says:

    damn it

  97. MrMold says:

    Remind your lesser Republican bretheren that the French aristocrats also believed in no taxes, thought everything was fine as there was plenty of cake, and would not exist except for those few who were out doing drinking tours.

  98. Here_we_go says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:

    Are you seriously quoting The Heritage Institute as a source of unbiased information?

    Seriously?

  99. HIV 2 Elway says:

    @Ubik2501: So what exactly is your point or arguement?

  100. Trai_Dep says:

    @Bladefist: “Bush nor McCain are truly republicans. They run for the Republican party, but if you compare them with the ideals of republicans…”

    See, this simply shows that your mind can’t process information in a rational way. It’s faith-based like Communism or Creationism.
    You always exclude the policies and car-crash pyrotechnic results of GOP Presidential policies by saying that they’re not “true” Republicans. Yet Bush Jr was the paragon of the Movement Conservatives – Unitary Executive, complete control over all branches of government and a neutered media – until reality sunk in. And McGrumpy is more of the same. But he’s not a “real” Republican either, by your reckoning.
    The GOP Prez, and 99.5% of the GOP Congress voted for the telecom immunity bill, but they aren’t “true” Republicans either. 99.5%. Who else is left? It’s absurd to suggest the GOP is anything else but that.

    Now, any thinking person would realize, with numbers and history like that, that Republican dogma is empty, sparkly words. They’d judge politics by results. You have to, outside of a Philosophy class. A thinking person would realize they’ve been fed a line: the above actions prove the GOP is, the rest is just window-dressing for the rubes.

    You, on the other hand, hop back the next day to the same Limbaugh bullet points, not a single independent thought having sunk in from the previous day’s events. There’re many things to call that, but neither “thinking” or “independent” are it.

    It’s just… Sad, bro. Just… Sad.

  101. mikelotus says:

    @HIV 2 Elway: While generally true, I think that Toyota’s resistance to the standards (even though their entire fleet already met the 2011 standards last year) shows that Toyota felt that by not mandating the standards, it would mean that the Big 3 would continue to fall further and further behind them since they were going to continue in that direction no matter what. So there is value in doing them, though clearly increasing gas tax is a much better way. I think the Japanese based on WW II, have a much clearer understanding of not having enough oil than we do.

  102. @mikelotus: Um, Mike- the numbers are FROM the Congressional Budget Office.

    @Here_we_go: No, I’m quoting numbers, and the heritage site is one of the few places that has the numbers laid out in detail. The source of THEIR numbers is the Congressional Budget Office.

  103. bohemian says:

    Looking just at the basic things a consumer will look at you bet things suck right now. Under Bush #1 and Bush #2 my dollar bought less, my paycheck & bank account also didn’t look so hot under both. During the span when Clinton was in office It was the absolute opposite. There were obviously a number of factors involved in the good times during Clinton’s term. But it takes the worlds most monumental screw up to tank our economy as hard and as fast as it has.

  104. MrMold says:

    Try reading the European auto blogs. Oh wait, they have nasty mpg requirements so all Europe is riding tiny little Trabants. And they will go bankrupt…any time now…soon… You know, we probably could stand a shot of Euro-style Socialism. Just to see if it works as well as Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid.

  105. mikelotus says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: excuse me you are right. But that is capital gains revenue which is what percentage of overall revenue? The rest did not do that. The rest is the majority of the revenue. Nice try Heritage.

  106. Here_we_go says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:
    If you read the bottom of your link you will see that those are actually projected numbers.

    It was an analysis of what might happen in 2004 done in 2003. You would have to look at completely different numbers to see the actual figures. Just read the bottom of your link.

  107. Here_we_go says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:

    If you read the bottom of your link you will see that those numbers are not the actual figures and are just projections. They were projections of the numbers from 2004 done in 2003.

  108. Trai_Dep says:

    Err, “A thinking person would realize they’ve been fed a line: the above actions prove who the GOP is, the rest is just window-dressing for the rubes.”

  109. Here_we_go says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:

    I’ll try this again. It seems that my comments are not posting.

    Those numbers are not the actual figures. If you read the bottom of your link you will see that those are projections and you would have to look somewhere else to see the actual figures. Those were projections for 2004 done in 2003.

  110. Here_we_go says:

    Wow. Look at all the repeat comments by that dork here_we_go.

    I would hope that he would try to learn to use a computer before posting again.

  111. JeffDrummer says:

    Not knowing who X and Y are, I prefer Y’s statement…

    I am a McCain supporter, but what X said wasn’t too great, saying that it doesn’t matter if there is a recession, but there is a recession isn’t too great.

    However, does anyone else think that both J Sidney, B Hussein both suck?

  112. JeffDrummer says:

    @bohemian: But ask any economist or businessperson and they will tell you that the President doesn’t really have all that much control over how the economy acts.

    There are few things that Fortune, The Economist, and Forbes agree upon, but they both think that with fiscal policy – less is more. (To a large extent)

  113. jscott73 says:

    This discussion is like trying to figure out how to get to the moon and everyone is arguing whether we should take the Ford or the Chevy.

    Let’s all try to take a step back and maybe see the system for what it is, broken and controlled by money, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

  114. mikelotus says:

    @Here_we_go: There is a huge delay now between posting and it showing up. Besides the site has logged me off 3 times today. And one should never call someone a dork that plays a video game called “Fables II.” Make that 4 loguts, when I posted this, told me I had to login. So less than 5 minutes after logging in, it logs me out! Fix this webmaster!

  115. mikelotus says:

    @JeffDrummer: This is true, but the bull pulpit of making people think you are going to do something is a great way to increase consumer confidence, like Bill Clinton’s stick in 1992. Something as simple as extending unemployment benefits can have a huge impact on confidence.

  116. kublaconsumer says:

    @mikelotus: It’s been well known in economic circles, for at least 50 years, that unemployment benefits actually cause unemployment, just like minimum wages.

    The best thing the govt can do to speed a recovery is to leave the economy alone. Looking to the president to “do” anything but “nothing” is a historic recipe for disaster.

  117. Techguy1138 says:

    @Bladefist: I am a supporter of universal health care since it is an issue that keeps the us from being competitive internationally.

    I also sincerely doubt that it can ever pass no matter how much I think we need to get insurance companies off the back of business.

    I don’t support tax cuts. I don’t see the Republicans even coming close to understanding fiscal planning.

    Look at the IamNotToddDavis posts for examples of the talking points that fail to be routed in economic reality. The republican plan on what to do really seems that simplistic.

    You can not respond to fundamental failings of the party by pointing to democrats. The complete lack of responsibility in the republican party is what caused to to fall so far. If there was a backbone to be had the republican party would be in good shape.

  118. @mikelotus: @Here_we_go:

    GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
    Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consec­utive quarters.
    The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Divi­dend payouts increased as well.
    The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
    The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

    [www.heritage.org]

    But since you guys seem to think that the Heritage Foundation is some sort of evil empire, I ask that you read this article from Mr. Keith Marsden-“Big, Not Better?” (Centre for Policy Studies, 2008, a fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies in London, who was previously an adviser at the World Bank and senior economist in the International Labour Organization.

    [online.wsj.com]
    (I’m not sure if it’s subscription onlly or not., let me know I’d be happy to email it to you.).
    The results of his study reveal the following -
    “The early supply-siders were right. My findings firmly reject the widely held view that lower taxes inevitably result in cuts in public services, slower growth and widening income inequalities. Today’s policy makers should take note of how tax cuts and the pruning of inefficient government programs can stimulate sluggish economies.”

  119. @Techguy1138: How am I “failing to be routed in reality”?

    And what does that mean exactly?

  120. VikingP77 says:

    Daddy Bush…….what a dud! I remember that he didn’t get a second term…..I just could not believe it when people forgot that and voted in Dubya doofus.

  121. TechnoDestructo says:

    @JeffDrummer:

    As long as I have been aware of politics, the candidates I have wanted to win the primaries have not. I have never seen a presidential (or gubernatorial) ballot that I have liked.

    The only bright side was seeing Hillary Clinton lose. She’s just rubbed me the wrong way ever since her appearance on Sesame Street.

  122. mikelotus says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: What did the GDP grow after the Clinton tax increases? And with a surplus, not an immoral debt passed on to our children. More on your nonsense:
    [krugman.blogs.nytimes.com]

    [krugman.blogs.nytimes.com]

    [krugman.blogs.nytimes.com]

    [www.cbpp.org]

    [krugman.blogs.nytimes.com]

    case closed. its a “slam dunk.”

  123. plural_of_moose says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: Yes, GDP did increase under Bush, but so did income inequality (the I(nvestment) part of figuring GDP rising, perhaps?). Rising GDP does nothing if those increases are narrowly distributed, as I doubt that an extra 500 dollars a month George McYachterson earns makes as much difference as it would to someone working two jobs and trying to get some money for a doctor’s visit, money which would go to an american doctor (or quickly spent, because if you’re working two jobs chances are the money’s spent) as opposed to a (imported) luxury good store, or just put into a savings account to not help the GDP. And the wrath of the right-leaning economists falls unto me…

    Hope this isn’t a duplicate

  124. sam1am says:

    As much as I dislike where things are going, I can’t bring myself to vote for anyone who wants more government and more taxes. I want less government, less taxes, more state rights, etc. Who represents my views? Ron Paul should start his own party.

  125. Pro-Pain says:

    Worst. Administration. Ever.

  126. kublaconsumer says:

    @plural_of_moose: So if Mr. TwoJobs spends the $500 on stuff from China it’s better than Mr.Yacht buying something from Europe? And, regarding savings not helping GDP: saving does help. It’s called investing. That money Mr.Yacht “saves” is actually invested to create more wealth. Ironically, if Mr.Yacht saves the money then Mr.TwoJobs might be able to get a better paying job and be Mr.OneJob.

  127. hwyengr says:

    @sam1am: What you want has led us down the path we’re on.

    Does anyone ever find it ironic that the Gilded Age that conservatives pine for (the ’40s and ’50s) wsa the most socialist (FDR), highest tax period (90% top-bracket) in the history of the United States. Not to mention, heavily based in the manufacturing sector?

  128. @plural_of_moose: So you would rather everyone be poor and equal?

    I never understand this argument. Whenever a government attempts to “redistribute” income the end result is everyone is poor, and the government controls everything.

    The opposite, which is what America was founded on, is the government lets individuals fend for themselves and become prosperous. The end result is that the rich get richer, and yes, even the poor get richer.

    The increase in “income equality” is a bogus myth.

  129. Bladefist says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: You are going through a lot of effort to teach a common sense thing. You spelled it out nicely, provided links, and thats that. I would leave it alone now, they don’t get it, and they don’t want to get it. They don’t want you to be right, because they’ve been told all their life taxes solve problems.

  130. Trai_Dep says:

    @mikelotus: Wait for the “But Krugman is part of the Liberal Media” in 3… 2… 1…

    (Nice researching, btw)

  131. Techguy1138 says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:

    You are looking at a narrow subset of economic health and calling it tax cuts a success.

    The equation of tax cuts to “more” revenue is akin to saying that quitting my job improves the quality of my life.

    In certain economic times cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is a valid tactic. Those times are when significant infrastructure improvements aren’t needed, there is no big short term national expenditure and the debt load of the nation is not excessively high.

    So if you are sitting on a million large quitting your job will improve your life. You have the cash reserves to spend while you do what you need to.

    Right now the nation has a very expensive short term war going on with a very high cost. We also have an unacceptably high debt load as we have decided to finance everything on debt. The nation is is desperate need of infrastructure rebuilding from roads,levels and energy distribution and no longer has the ability to fund it.

    So while the economic short term indicators rise with tax cuts the debt load of the government increases beyond the value to the economy.

    Dunno why the new breed of Republicans seem to believe that the few instances where tax cuts were appropriate apply in all situations.

    It’s like Democrats figured out a way to take over the party make fiscal irresponsibility and big government the core of the modern Republican platform.

  132. Techguy1138 says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:

    GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
    Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts.

    This change in the economy had much less to do with the cut in taxation than it had to do with the drop in the prime interest rate. The increase or decrease of taxes takes a modest amount of time to trickle in to an economy provided the taxes were moderate to begin with. The change your talking about was directly financed by the housing and finance bubble.

    “The early supply-siders were right. My findings firmly reject the widely held view that lower taxes inevitably result in cuts in public services, slower growth and widening income inequalities. Today’s policy makers should take note of how tax cuts and the pruning of inefficient government programs can stimulate sluggish economies.”

    He also neglected to take into account the central rates of those economies during those times and their exposures to the US credit market. Many of the economies he credited with being left behind are now currently gaining while the US is falling backwards.

    There is merit in the idea the excessive taxation stifles an economy of the funds are ill used. The US does not suffer from excessive taxation.

  133. @Techguy1138: If I’m understanding your argument correctly, you are stating that right now our nation is in fiscal dire straits due to the various aforementioned reasons. So by that logic one would have to assume that an increase in Tax revenue would help to alleviate some of these issues since as you say, we are “financing” this debt and don’t have the money to fix infrastructure, etc.(technically our entire monetary system is based on debt as PJ O’Rourke puts it-“A U.S. dollar is an IOU from the Federal Reserve Bank. It’s a promissory note that doesn’t actually promise anything. It’s not backed by gold or silver. If Hu Jintao brought a $100 bill with him to Washington, and if he took the $100 bill over to the Federal Reserve, what he got for it was a hundred dollars. He may have gotten it in twenties, tens, or dimes. But all the Fed will give anyone for their American money is other American money. Hu Jintao is stuck with his IOU”- but I digress).

    So the next logical question would be thus- what will do more to raise tax revenue; raising or lowering taxes?

    I have presented the argument in clear numerical terms; a proven track record in the US that lowering taxes INCREASES OVERALL REVENUE more than raising taxes. If you have something proves that RAISING taxes INCREASES OVERALL REVENUE more than LOWERING THEM, then let’s hear it.

    If you want to say it’s irrelevant one way or the other (and I would agree to a certain extent), fine. Then you won’t have any problems with tax cuts because it doesn’t matter. If you want to pay more, be my guest- the government accepts checks and money orders.

  134. legwork says:

    we’re so screwed

  135. buyer5 says:

    You know who else wanted change…

  136. Techguy1138 says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: your arguments are not in clear numerical terms because you are simplifying the issue beyond reason.

    You only give 3 examples of tax cuts.

    The 1920 tax cuts you first pointed to like recent times point to a bubble. Why did they stop counting the increased income at 1928? Why not include the 1929-32 data?

    A also agree with tax cuts in this case. There was an over 70% tax rate. Even then looking at the general economic trends it’s obvious that the increase in tax revenue had to do with the investment bubble.

    The second example- America was already going through an industrial boom so as the decade progressed people were making drastically more money.

    You could claim that reducing taxes increased revenue or you could claim having the wealthy taxed at 70% is the magic number for wealth vs growth.

    The Regan tax cuts came at the same time the government injected 3 trillion dollars of debt into the economy. The disconnect between spending and revenue was historically unprecedented. Quite simply the government created a vast amount of money out of debt. When you devalue your currency you can expect to get more of it back. I bet Zimbabwe now collects billion in taxes. During the Regan years they took in more money but vastly reduced the value of what they were collecting.

    The situations you referenced do not give any credit to the idea the universally lowering taxes will result in a sustained increase in revenue. The only example you cited that led to a sustained prosperity and then the tax rate on the rich was 70%!

    Even if the odds were reversed and the odds of lowering taxes may increase revenue was %66 that is a hefty risk. Considering there have been 4 periods of lower taxes and only one has lead to a sustainable growth makes this a risky idea at best.

    Risky ideas are for fiscal radicals.

  137. BillsBurg says:

    So I make $98K per year, my wife doesn’t work and I have three kids (1 7 Yr old, 4 yr Twins) and lets see, I paid less than $1000 in FEDERAL in 07. No exotic deductions, no stock stuff to deduct, nothing. So am I low income or am I high income??? If I’m considered someone in the lower income then what are lower income people paying. I think that those that are in the low income bracket really don’t pay taxes are used to show they pay high taxes when in reality they probably don’t pay that much in FEDERAL taxes. They may pay 5% in state sales tax or 4% in state income tax or even some other STATE or LOCAL fees that are really taxes, but not FEDERAL income taxes, they really pay little or no FEDERAL income taxes.

    Maybe what need to happen is the Federal Government really should looks at the Constitution and focus in on the 10th Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Show me in the Constitution where Universal Health Care or the Department of Education is spelled out. Maybe the States should take care of those items. and the Federal Gov should focus on National Defense and foreign policy. Why not allow the states take care of health care, or education then those that want to will move to those states that offer the best services for these items. Why not limit the federal government and give the power back to the States where it belongs. Our Governors and Representatives are very weak as the should be the ones that are fighting for this!!!.

  138. pastabatman says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:

    FYI – techguy1138 is mopping the floor with you.

    Additionally, your whole premise is strange to me as we are in a state of ‘low taxes’ RIGHT NOW! Deficit up. Economy slowing. Inflation up. Dow peaked @14,000 last summer. 11,900 now.

    You’re taxation trickle down theory is not working as we speak…! Why is that? Explain.

  139. Snowblind says:

    @kcrusher:

    The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging. Adding more dirt while you are still digging will not help.

    Same thing is said here: stop spending more than you have, then pay back what you owe.

    It never suggests “Take more of other peoples money to pay back what you should have not spent in the first place.”

    ECON 101 will tell you, only two government handles on the economy: money supply and taxes.

    Increase taxes, economy slows down. Lower taxes, expand the economy.

    If you want less debt… quit spending money.

  140. hwyengr says:

    @Snowblind: If you could, please provide your street address so we can have police and fire protection and street repairs halted for you. Those things cost money!

  141. Techguy1138 says:

    @Techguy1138:
    To make it clear, the reason I like GH Bush is that he cut governmental spending and increased taxes leading into a period of fiscal responsibility.

    We had to wait for Clinton to see a balanced budget but the groundwork for the boom of the 90’s was lead by the reversal of the policies of the Regan years.

  142. RodAox says:

    Surprise Surprise

  143. admiralguy says:

    This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle are equally adept at running roughshod over the economy. Sure, government spending has a positive immediate impact on the economy, but it’s poisonous to the actual growth of the economy. We need a major decrease in government spending, which would allow for decreased taxes to the rich, middle class, poor, and especially small and medium sized businesses (the major employers out there). We would see a huge boost in consumer confidence if businesses were encouraged to grow and create decent paying jobs.

    Bush could have just as easily ridden out the boom of the 90’s in office as Clinton did. In fact, Clinton did more to hurt small and medium businesses than either Bush, and he gets the praise for an economic boom??? A president has control over just two things: taxes and red tape. These two things went UP during Clinton’s terms in office.

  144. @Techguy1138: So, raise or lower taxes?

    What will increase revenue more efficiently?

    My arguments are not clear in numerical terms to YOU maybe (and apparently pastabatman), but they seem pretty clear to me and other economists such as Mr. Marsden.

    So I’ll try again to keep it simple- raise or lower taxes?

    I would put dollars to donuts that your answer will be “well, it’s not that simple.”

    Again, the government accepts both check and money orders.

  145. mikelotus says:

    @admiralguy: @IamNotToddDavis: Back it up with real data. I did. You did not because you can’t. We are an under taxed nation by any measurement. Let’s face it. You are morally corrupt because you want a free lunch. The biggest morale corruption was to lower taxes during a time of war. Who in their right mind does that? This president didn’t have the guts to pay for this disaster as we go. No, we pass on our sins to the next generation. You talk about not spending money. What a load of crap when its this Iraq misadventure that is sucking the most down that is not an entitlement.

  146. ironchef says:

    LOL@conservatives.

    You guys had it your way.

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

  147. opfreak says:

    alot of people here are just plan stupid.

    you cannot cut taxes on poor people because:

    POOR PEOPLE DO NOT PAY TAXES.

    The top 50% of wage earners in this country pay ~%97 of the taxes.

    The top 1% pay ~ 40% of the taxes.

    The bottom 50% of wage earnes pay ~3%.

    so please tell me, how in the world can you cut taxes on people THAT DO NOT PAY any taxes?

    If you are so freaking well off, and feel you should pay more taxes, just give the goverement more money. Because we all know they are the best spenders in the world.

    [www.ntu.org]

  148. battra92 says:

    @opfreak: That was something of a Zen like moment there. Just spelled it out completely for people.

    It’s not the government’s job to take care of the poor anyway. That’s the Salvation Army’s job.

    Seriously, the only real change in fiscal policy we could have that would make a great difference would be to institute the FairTax and putting a cap on Federal spending (send the fluff to the states if they must have it.)

  149. kryllen says:

    Actually, I quite like GW. These are “opinions.”

    It just so happens that the responses on this thread (OK, from what I can tell, most threads on this particular site), the majority of people who read/comment here don’t like him. There are plenty of other sites out there that support GW and bash the democrats. I do value the lucid arguments when they are presented but I am distressed that many of the arguments against the President and/or the Republican party dissolve into petty name calling or simply “Nuh-uh!” comments.

    Personally, I believe that statistics can be faked and that there are many people that will blindly follow them. When people mass together with a particular political view and begin reporting their facts as truth, more people mass together with them. Soon the facts don’t matter.

  150. opfreak says:

    And FYI- What is the Big ‘O’s plan for the economy—

    more hope and change?

    i read his website, big on fluff, low on details.

    Its a new politc’s label, with old liberal political ideas:

    Tax cuts for people that dont pay taxes.
    Tax increase for the ‘rich’ (whats his defination of rich, hmmm, in general liberals like him feel anyone making over 50k is ‘rich’)

    Higher min wage

    More lending rules..
    Cap Loans at 36% max.. (bad credit people, your now SOL)
    Kill free trade
    More goverment manadate paid time off from work.

    please tell me what ‘new’ ideas he has to help?

    Answer = None, just more of the “The goverment is smarter then you, I am smarter then you, I will tell you what you should be making, and what services you should be getting”

  151. Bladefist says:

    @opfreak: Mitt Romney (my hero), when he was governor, made a public fund, and told the tax payers that if they want higher taxes, just write a check to the fund, and he’ll use it in Government programs. They got $1200.

  152. opfreak says:

    @Bladefist:

    futher proof that the people that always scream about raising taxes, dont want to put their money where their mouth is.

    I do applaud those that did pay the extra 1200, at least they stand for something. I can respect that.

  153. patodonnell39 says:

    What happened to making people earn their money? Instead, Obama wants to just take rich people’s money and give it to poor people for no reason. There’s no accountability anymore. Whenever someone else has something nice (money), instead of working harder to get it, they just expect people to hand it to them.

    Obama’s New Slogan: “Change is good. But bills are better.”

  154. RayDelMundo says:

    Let’s tax our way back to prosperity!

  155. @Bladefist: Don’t you think the reason behind Romney’s public fund was snark, and not any actual solution to his state’s budget problems? I mean, I could always write a check to the U.S. Public Debt, but why should I? It puts me out, and whatever I might be able to contribute all by myself wouldn’t make so much as a ripple when it arrived at the IRS.

    What is required is for somebody to actually put together a plan to balance outlays with revenue. Although putting a stop to the current nonsense in Iraq might help considerably, I doubt this can be done without at least allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, but if you have any ideas, I’m all ears.

  156. JessicaJessica says:

    Read my lips … no consumer confidence!!

  157. Bladefist says:

    @opfreak: Going off memory, I think it was 1 person who paid, or maybe 1 huge one, and a few small ones.

    @Steaming Pile: I think he was making a point. The people don’t want to pay more taxes. Everyone who shouts more taxes, is just assuming the rich will pay’em. Why should you? Why should you not? You want more programs, better funding on the programs we have, why not send more money? It may be a small amount, but it’ll help. Do your part man.

    I got tons of ideas. Conservative ideas. You do tax reform, perhaps a fair tax, and you drastically cut spending and reduce government size. There are so many programs I would cut. The Iraq war is really not that huge of a burden on our economy. I don’t want to get into an Iraq debate, but in my opinion, I don’t want to co-exist with suicide bombers and a fear of a terrorist attack on united states. So we need to spend whatever it takes to clean up that mess. I think the world needs to realize, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc are the middle school drop outs, who are shooting up crack, and will always be a cost to society.

    Back to the topic, you do what Bush hasn’t done, you cut everything. Take our Government size back 30 years.

  158. @Bladefist: Of course people don’t want to pay taxes, but how else are you going to raise revenue to do the very necessary things government does? It’s like going to the dentist. Nobody wants to do it, but the alternative is letting your teeth fall out. Which do you want?

    Now, if there are places, and I’m sure there are lots of them, where fat can be trimmed, then let’s trim the fat, by all means. I’m just saying that there isn’t enough fat in the domestic budget to fill the budget hole. The difference should be made up somehow. If we really need to be spending 18 billion dollars a month in Iraq, if that is the price of your being able to sleep soundly at night (I know better), then the revenue needs to come from somewhere. Since our feckless President isn’t about to ask us to buy war bonds, where is the money coming from?

  159. opfreak says:

    @Steaming Pile:

    and is the big O proposing any spending cuts?

    I bet the goverment budget is full of fat. When was the last time it was actaully cut?

    And not one of those Cuts liberals like to scream about:

    You know, the ones where they say we should increase spend on say education buy 20%, but the otherside says no, only 10%. And they scream about the otherside not caring about education because they ‘cut’ the INCREASE?

  160. opfreak says:

    @Neecy:

    whos smarter? The Big “O”…
    with his 57 states?

    or with his not knowing he broke a promise with campaign fiancing?

    Err, that new tone politics, stinks of same old same old.

  161. Pro-Pain says:

    @opfreak: Perfect!! That is exactly what I’m looking for! Thanks for showing me I need to vote for Obama in the fall.

  162. battra92 says:

    @Bladefist: Romney was my pick this year (and I’m from MA.) He was a great governor, businessman and didn’t even take a salary out of principal.

    @Steaming Pile: Although putting a stop to the current nonsense in Iraq might help considerably, I doubt this can be done without at least allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, but if you have any ideas, I’m all ears.

    Dirty little secret is, even Barry Obama can’t pull out of Iraq. Oh he may have troop withdrawls or what not (and probably make it look like a defeat) but we’re there for a while. That’s an undeniable truth of life right now.

    The Dept. of Health & Human Services spends more than the entire defense department. If we got rid of some of the all powerful state programs the feds would be able to pay off a lot of that debt quicker. If the states want to pick up those programs, let them vote on it.

    Take for example, the School Lunch program. In 2007 we spent 11 Billion dollars on lunch in the public screwl system. There is absolutely no reason the federal government should be doing this. If I, Average American, can pack a healthy lunch for me to take to work that costs me, maybe, $1.50 (something almost all families should be able to afford) there is no reason that the Federal government should be spending 11 billion dollars.

    Just a small example but a good way to see how waste piles up.

  163. HIV 2 Elway says:

    @Steaming Pile: I really like my dentist and look forward to going in. He’s so damn nice.

  164. Trai_Dep says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: Techguy isn’t saying that your guy isn’t providing figures. He is. Techguy1138 is saying the data cherry-picks. GIGO.
    His simplest example is the best: why did the Heritage Foundation use a dataset that ended in the late ’20s? Perhaps something else, not tax rates, impacted the US economy after their cutoff point?
    Does that make sense? Can you see how one can’t draw conclusions unless a full dataset is used? And if the Heritage site did use such cunning parsing of data, can you see how skeptical it makes reasonable people of their entire report?

  165. @Trai_Dep: I gave several examples of tax cuts that helped to raise tax revenue.

    Then you and several others made complaints about the Heritage Foundation being biased and “skewering Data” (which I completely disagree with) but for the sake of argument I included a London Economist who works for several well respected financial institutions, and he only further reinforced my point using data from across the globe.

    I tried to simplify this AGAIN for sake of argument; what will raise revenue faster- and increase or a decrease in tax rates?

    The fact that no one seems capable of answering this question (besides those of us who already know the answer) tells me that this isn’t nor has it ever been a serious argument.

  166. LionelEHutz says:

    W will not be beaten by his father at anything dammit!

    By the time W leaves office consumer confidence will be lower than during pappy’s reign and gas prices will still be insane.

  167. Trai_Dep says:

    Dude, they windowed the periods to exclude the Great Depression, capturing only the frothy speculation bubble that brought the entire globe to its knees for nearly a decade.
    Any reasonable survey of that length would use pickets of equal lengths of time, charting tax rates and whatever dependent variable they’re measuring. Throw the data into a chart and you’re done.
    This is really basic statistical methodology. So basic that one can’t chalk it up to error: it’s intentional.
    If so, it’s meant to deceive. If they deceive there, their entire report is meant to defraud. Citing CBO stats, while a clever stab at false respectability, doesn’t change that.

    If you don’t see that, you’re not interested in truth. You seem to be a reasonably smart guy. Why do you enjoy being suckered?

  168. Techguy1138 says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:

    The most conservative way to raise tax revenue is to increase taxes. Simply put the tax rates are not a drag on the economy. Lowering taxes from the current level will have no effect.

    There is your plain and simple answer.

    You have given me 4 examples where it has worked to middling results, leading 3 times into massive failure.

    I can show you 200+ years of responsible taxation covering our national expenditure. Even in previous times of great distress, far greater than now, the nation has managed to do well.

    Of course no one WANTS to pay taxes but our current national situation is that we have to start paying down the excessive debt that we have , and continue to, build. If we keep turning to radical ideas that are politically friendly but fiscally irresponsible America will loose its place in the world more so than it has.

    Steadily and responsible cutting of expenses, investing in infrastructure, and taxation will lead to a gradual reversal of the current situation. Economic change regardless of what you believe does not need to be done in an all or nothing gamble.

    Republicans like you are why I want a mainstream political party for conservatives.

  169. Techguy1138 says:

    @Trai_Dep:

    The error isn’t with the heritage foundation article but instead the interpretation of it.

    The article while skewed towards favoring lower taxes does not make the outright claim that lowering taxes increases revenue. It asserts that in those situations lowering taxes did increase revenue.

    It falls flat because in reading the summary it actually makes the connecting between a simpler tax code and increased revenue. I can agree with that but no supporting evidence was given for that.

    Overall the heritage foundation document isn’t nearly as extreme as Iamnottodddavis makes it sound.

    I’d like to see a modern example that includes the bush administration and calculates deflation against the increased revenue.

  170. Bladefist says:

    @Techguy1138: I read an article today in the Kiplinger that Obama wants to cut more taxes then I was aware of. His recently hired finance adviser has advised him to cut corporate taxes down to 30.5%, and cut taxes all around the board (Even the rich).

    So really, I’m happier today then I was yesterday. Looks like either way, the government is going to be lowering taxes. So, we both presidential candidates wanting to cut taxes, it makes me wonder if there is any significance in your data.

    So now what are you libs gonna do? You have always been able to attack republicans for their flawed opinions on taxes, now you have the biggest leftist liberal in the modern world coming around. Now what?

  171. @Techguy1138: First of all, I’m not a Republican, but nice attempt at projection.

    And I didn’t ask you what was the most “conservative” way to raise revenue, I asked what is the most efficient. What will raise the most revenues? I am assuming that we both agree that an increase in tax revenues will help to retire the debt that you believe should be our priority.

    Your answer is to raise taxes.

    My answer is somewhat in congruence to your ideas about what overall tax rates do to the economy. I will use Hausers Law as an example-

    [bp1.blogger.com]

    [online.wsj.com]

    “The data show that the tax yield (revenues divided by GDP) has been independent of marginal tax rates from 1950 to 2007 (see chart above), but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.

    What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser’s Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That’s a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich – if they knew about it.”

  172. Techguy1138 says:

    @Bladefist: I dislike modern republicans for being for big government and their stance on fiscal responsibility. I am in disgust on what has happened in terms of reducing the powers of the constitution and the flagrant destruction of the military through sweetheart deals.

    I am against big government and wasteful spending.
    I am for states rights, a balanced budget, a strong constitution and the US military.

    Do you even understand how far the Republican party has fallen? Why when given the house,senate and white house hasn’t the Republican party been able to defend of forward any of those core values?

    How did values like mine get to be such fringe ideas that I am no longer identifiable as a Republican?

    The party has been a miserable failure. McCain is a place holder candidate run by the party so that no one with a political future will be damaged.
    Much needs to be changed and McCain isn’t talking about any of it.

    Both candidates are going to be more of the same. Both are going to increase spending. I’ll look for the one that will spend most of that money on US infrastructure.

    We have a city, a few bridges and a series of levees that need rebuilding and we also have a large number of unemployed construction workers.

  173. Techguy1138 says:

    @IamNotToddDavis:
    Sorry my response got lost this is the short version

    Lowering taxes will not have a significant effect. It will be far from the most efficient.

    What you quoted shows only the tax rate on the rich compared to taxes as a fraction gdp. All that happened was the tax burden was taken off the wealthy. More ‘poor’ people are paying taxes.
    Last year I paid more in taxes than Warren Buffet. I make far less.

    “What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser’s Law says it will also lower tax revenue.”

    That was proven wrong by the graph in the article. During the Clinton years taxes on the rich increased and the tax revenue went up.

    It’s nice that you can find a few op-eds to support your position but 200+ years of fiscal prudence has shown better results in this nation.

    The history you show provides a momentary bump fueled by inflation followed by a sharp fall off for the 1920,1980s and currently. Lowering taxes is a cheap parlor trick with a proven track record of dramatic failure.

  174. @Techguy1138: “I paid more in taxes than Warren Buffet

    You mean in terms of perecentage of income or actual dollars?

    ” During the Clinton years taxes on the rich increased and the tax revenue went up.

    Again, I could make the argument that on several other occasions taxes on “the rich” were lowered and tax revenue went up. But the main point was that GDP increased when the tax rates were lowered, which is more reflective of what happens when people are allowed to keep and invest more of their money than opposed to handing it over to the government to spend.

    Lowering taxes is a cheap parlor trick with a proven track record of dramatic failure.

    I disagree. I think raising taxes is a recipe for economic disaster especially considering the current economy and a further surrender of our liberties to a massive bloated bureaucracy with a horrible track record of economic mismanagement, fraud and waste.

  175. mikelotus says:

    I see that the Republicans have defaulted to their typical “we know what’s best arguments.” Poor people should use the salvation army since its not the government’s job to do this. Hate to tell you its the government’s job to do whatever the people say it is. Here are some more beauties from the “I don’t believe that a nation is measured in how it treats all its citizens but just how it treats it successful ones:”

    “Take for example, the School Lunch program. In 2007 we spent 11 Billion dollars on lunch in the public screwl system. There is absolutely no reason the federal government should be doing this. If I, Average American, can pack a healthy lunch for me to take to work that costs me, maybe, $1.50 (something almost all families should be able to afford) there is no reason that the Federal government should be spending 11 billion dollars.” Do you know that educators say that this has been one of the most effective programs in government history? But hey, a government that does nothing is better than one that does good. Education investment? Why should the government want to do that?

    “The Dept. of Health & Human Services spends more than the entire defense department. If we got rid of some of the all powerful state programs the feds would be able to pay off a lot of that debt quicker. If the states want to pick up those programs, let them vote on it.” And people will be better off? Most of what they “spend” is what you pay into medicare. Not some additional tax revenue.

    “There are so many programs I would cut. The Iraq war is really not that huge of a burden on our economy. I don’t want to get into an Iraq debate, but in my opinion, I don’t want to co-exist with suicide bombers and a fear of a terrorist attack on united states. So we need to spend whatever it takes to clean up that mess. I think the world needs to realize, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc are the middle school drop outs, who are shooting up crack, and will always be a cost to society.” The Iraq war is not a huge burden? We spend over $2000 a minute on Iraq! And Iraq has nothing to do with suicide bombers in the US. Bin Laden whom Bust dropped the ball on does. He is in Pakistan.

    “Tax cuts for people that dont pay taxes.
    Tax increase for the ‘rich’ (whats his defination of rich, hmmm, in general liberals like him feel anyone making over 50k is ‘rich’)

    Higher min wage

    More lending rules..
    Cap Loans at 36% max.. (bad credit people, your now SOL)
    Kill free trade
    More goverment manadate paid time off from work.

    please tell me what ‘new’ ideas he has to help?

    Answer = None, just more of the “The goverment is smarter then you, I am smarter then you, I will tell you what you should be making, and what services you should be getting”” Evidently mandating paid sick leave, pregnancy leaves, etc. are bad things. Look how bad it is in countries that do it. They seem to have less poor, higher educated people. Evidently we can compete with the rest of the world without actually investing in our people! Wow, no investment and infinite return on investment. You Norquist types really have that magic down. Tell us more.

    And finally, even the supply siders contradict themselves. “Increase taxes, economy slows down. Lower taxes, expand the economy.” The Laffler curve shows that there is a optimum tax rate to maximize revenue and it ain’t zero. Because that is where your nonsense argument takes us. Additionally, let me explain mutual funds. By having many people invest small amounts of money, the fund manager can better use that money that anyone of us can with our small amounts. Same with government. We don’t build bridges or interstate highway systems, educate people, have an NIH with out government investment.

    We see what it comes down to is these people seem to believe that a society is best remembered on how little the government does for its people by allowing some to get very rich. I can’t think of any good examples of a successful society that has done that, but perhaps they can point me to a few.

    But doesn’t really matter does it? There will be a major wipe out this November. Obama may win 40 states and will win some southern states. The Dem majority will increase in the Senate and big time in the House. Why? Because the Republicans have pretty much messed this nation up for the last 8 years.

  176. Bladefist says:

    @Techguy1138: Alright. You got me there. I guess we agree. I do not like the current status of todays republican party. They look like democrats more often then not.

  177. Smorgasbord says:

    I am what I call a neutralist (I don’t belong to any political party). We should all keep in mind, the news media hates Republicans so much they make up stories like President Bushes’ military record (written in Times New Roman font), doctor up pictures like the American solder who said negative things about President Bush (actually a Canadian soldier doctored up), and many burning buildings in Iraq (one building and smoke copied over and over into the picture. Did you hear that after the Bush tax cuts there was more revenue going into the Federal treasury than there was BEFORE the tax cuts? No!!! All I want to know is how many times a poll is taken before the results the pollsters want are gotten?

  178. kcrusher says:

    Bottom line – republicans have had 8 years to show us what they can do and…they’ve fallen short, with no real hope for the future.

    No responsible energy policy.
    An EPA that is hobbled (more pollution for you!)
    An FDA that’s run by insiders from the drug industry
    The running roughshod over our constitutional rights in the name of ‘protecting’ us from the terra-ists.
    The return of religious dogmatism
    The violation of laws left and right
    The falling value of the dollar
    The mortgage crisis (if this is what gov’t ‘getting out of the way of business’ is going to produce, I think we need at least a modicum of regulation, don’t you?)
    The start of a war based on false pretense and the complete irresponsible management and planning of the occupation.

    I thought America was smarter than this – that we had such intelligence, such command of diplomacy and military wiles that we could capture the perpetrators, infiltrate and negate any of their efforts without having to blow up an entire country.

    I guess that’s not the case – or at least not in the case of this administration, who seem hell bent on war with anyone who doesn’t please them. McCain seems only all to ready to continue that policy and the other failed policies of this administration.

    Let’s see – have I missed anything?

    8 years you’ve had to bring prosperity and peace – and this is what you have to show for it?

    No wonder people are looking for something different.