51 Comments

• 1. Ricorun  |  October 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  IMO, while satisfying on its face, the problem with the whole “throw the bums out” idea is that the staffs of the “bums” are usually career types that basically play musical chairs. And if you don’t do something about that, then a “throw the bums out” attitude, especially when based on a too simple concept like term limits, will accomplish little except to entrench more power in the hands of behind-the-scene actors like career staff personnel and their cronies, the high powered lobbyists. So be very careful what you wish for, because it seems to me that what you’re wishing for is actually a prescription for Tammany Hall style politics writ large, where the candidates are interchangeable while the power is wielded behind the scenes.

  The problem is compounded it the “throw the bums out” attitude is legislated in the form of term limits. It could be argued that term limits work on local and perhaps even on state levels, because in most cases the staffs of said legislators are either small or non-existent. But I am much more skeptical if it were to be applied on a national level. Term limits virtually guarantee two things: First, it guarantees large crops of inexperienced legislators in every election cycle. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, it guarantees an equally large crop of lame duck legislators in every election cycle. Given the breadth and complexity of the responsibilites necessarily instilled in legislators on the national level, that strikes me as a recipe for disaster. I’m all but certain it would ensure something like a Boss Tweed, or a Huey Long, or a Mayor Daley pulling the strings on power at a national level. And that’s the last thing we need.

  One alternative is to shine as bright a light on every facet of the legislative process as possible. Things have improved in that regard recently, but much more has to be done.

• 2. liberalD  |  October 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

  here is the thing Mark. The polls almost always say things like this. The problem with your logic is actually quite basic. When you look at polls and ask people if they approve of congress - the answer is almost always no. However, if you ask people if they are happy with *their* senator or congressman the answer is much more likely to be yes. Just go take a look at any of the polls taken in previous years. Now - it is of course unarguable that people are more unhappy with congress now than usual - having at times even record lows. However, if you take a look at who they want to see in control of congress next year - just take a look
  http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm

  so sorry Mark - but 2008 is going to be crushing for you. Which is why the McCain campaign has sunk to even new lows in simply trying to not address issues and try to simply smear and lie and deceive the american people - scaring them enough into voting for McCain.
  Pathetic isn’t it

• 3. Mark Noonan  |  October 5th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

  liberalID,

  Hadn’t gone over to Polling Report of late and they just dropped heavily in my estimation since they have the Daily Kos’ absurd poll up - but discounting that one, the most recent one listed on that side shows a 12 point Democrat advantage in the generic Congressional ballot. Have you checked what the Democratic advantage was in 2004? Anywhere from 5 points to 13 points, depending on the poll. Who won the Congressional majority in 2004? Republicans. What does this mean? That polling for Congress is notoriously difficult, generally slants in favor of the Democrats and is thus only a predictor if you start seeing a Democratic advantage of 15 or more points…and then still a weak predictor.

  If you’re going to comment on politics, your first step is to learn a bit of the history of American politics. I’m not in the dark by choice here - this race is just unpredictable because the variables have never been seen before and thus no person with wisdom is going to get out there and make a hard and fast judgement on who will win…

• 4. Mark Noonan  |  October 5th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  liberalID,

  Oh, and there is that Gallup poll from a month ago showing a 5 point GOP advantage in the Congressional match up…that is something I’ve never seen in all my life of observing politics - and that is 28 years. Its a strange year - go out and fight for your side…but don’t get cocky.

• 5. liberalD  |  October 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  care to put money down. I say Obama wins the election by 2-3% of the popular vote and comes up with 320+ electoral votes and the congress stays democratic with the senate split being 56-44.

• 6. Kahn  |  October 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  Meanwhile; the troops back McCain over Obama 68% to 23%.

  http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

  I’ll be watching to see how the “every vote counts” liberals try to screw them out of their votes THIS year.

• 7. Casper  |  October 5th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  Kahn,
  If I remember correctly, Mark said this poll doesn’t count. Not that I agree with him.

• 8. phnx  |  October 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  The Congress passed the bailout bill xontrary to the wishes of 80% of the electorate.

  Sadly this arrogant “we know what’s better for you than you do” attitude will not result in any signifivant change in congress.

  The McCain and the GOP missed a real opportunity to be on the side of the electorate by opposing this bill. INstead they folded, and gave sufficient cover for the ‘conservative dems’ to vote against it thereby securing their seats.

  You can look back at this vote and tell your grand children, you were there when free market capitalism (what was left of it) gave up the ghost.

• 9. Mark Noonan  |  October 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  Casper,

  Actually, what I say is that polls are a weak reed - don’t put too much stock in them. Plenty of times a poll has said one thing and an election has gone the exact opposite. This year has been especially volatile - so have a caution with all polls.

• 10. Mark Noonan  |  October 5th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  liberalID,

  No, I only bet on such things when I can figure out what might happen - I would have bet on the 2006 election and lost, but in that election I at least had a rational argument behind my predictions…this year, in my view, any prediction of the outcome is foolhardy.

  Be that as it may, if we do end up losing the White House and retaining 44 Senate seats, we GOPers will be pleased with that result in the long run - with conservative Justices in good health, there is little chance that Obama will be able to replace a liberal with a conservative (though we’ll bemoan our loss of a couple good chances to replace a conservative with a liberal - I expect one or two liberal Justices to retire if Obama wins, but cling desperately to office if McCain wins…but death eventually comes to take us all); having 44 Senators means we’ll be able to block the worst aspects of Obama policy, meanwhile watching as the parts Obama gets through become complete disasters…we don’t think Obama’s policies will fail, we know with certainty that they will because they’ve all been tried in the past and have uniformly failed. So, we’ll be well positioned for 2010 and 2012.

  Naturally, we’d prefer it if we won - but we also don’t live and die by politics here on the right side of the aisle…our faith in God allows us to take the long view and not be too disturbed by events as they occur.

• 11. Ricorun  |  October 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  Mark: we don’t think Obama’s policies will fail, we know with certainty that they will because they’ve all been tried in the past and have uniformly failed. So, we’ll be well positioned for 2010 and 2012.

  Here’s another bone to chew on… if McCain/Palin succeed, the chances are rather good that the GOP won’t be well positioned for 2010 or 2012. I’m not saying it’s a guarantee, I’m just saying it’s realistic possibility.

• 12. Mark Noonan  |  October 5th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

  Ricorun,

  Perhaps - still better to win; and, also, we GOPers bucked the trend in 2002 and we could, perhaps, do it again in 2010.

• 13. Casper  |  October 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  “we don’t think Obama’s policies will fail, we know with certainty that they will because they’ve all been tried in the past and have uniformly failed.”

  And you would prefer someone who has the same policies as Bush whose policies have recently failed?

• 14. phnx  |  October 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

  “And you would prefer someone who has the same policies as Bush whose policies have recently failed?” Casper

  We know that you want to tie McCain to Bush by claiming that they are the same, and by using that mantra that Bush’s policies have failed.

  Tell us oh wise one, specifically which of Bush’s economic policies of have failed. Or is this just another one of the BS mantras?

• 15. Casper  |  October 5th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  phnx
  Deregulation

• 16. Observer20  |  October 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

  Casper,

  What specific bills did McCain vote with Bush for on deregulation that you disagree with?

• 17. cam  |  October 5th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

  Every election there are alternatives to almost all of the incumbants and every year the incumbants get re-elected. Most of the districts have been geymandered to an extent where few of the incumbents even face a true challenge. Further, and this, I believe, is the worst problem, money has been equated to free speach and corporations have been given equal rights to individuals along with all of the Constitutional rights granted to individuals. As long as these conditions exist there will not be significant turnover and proportional representation will remain out of grasp of the average citizen.

• 18. Joe Bananas..in Pajamas  |  October 5th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

  Failed?

  How are you worse off? How has the Bush Admin made your life worse off now than pre 2001?

  Pray tell us? how has your day to day life been affected for the worse?

  I would dearly like to know, please don’t give me the current wall st scenario, a good case can be made against both Dems and Repubs for this.

• 19. Ricorun  |  October 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  phnx: We know that you want to tie McCain to Bush by claiming that they are the same, and by using that mantra that Bush’s policies have failed. Tell us oh wise one, specifically which of Bush’s economic policies of have failed. Or is this just another one of the BS mantras?

  What are you arguing, phnx? Are you arguing that no Bush policies failed? How black and white do you want it? Do you want McCain to tie himself to Bush or not? If not, should McCain differ in all respects from Bush? If only a few, which ones? Therein, I think, lies McCain’s fundamental dilemma.

• 20. js  |  October 5th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

  honestly…if you want to clean out the rats next…ban all forms of lobby from special interest coprotations…nobody from the oil/auto/phamaceutical/insurance/health/etc…etc…could have anything to do with a member of congress or the senate….no donating trips or planes or sponsoring meals or parties…nothing in any way that could influence the choice and judgement of legislators for any consideration whatsoever…

  then they could do thier job for the people of these united states instead of corporations that are out to screw the people…

• 21. phnx  |  October 5th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  Casper and Rico, I want you to give me specifics of which Bush economic policies failed. I don’t think that either of you can. This has become a mantra of the left like “Bush lied people died”.

  These are convenient sound bites which paint with a broad brush but provide no substance or specifics.

  So do your worst, give us the specifics.

  I’ll start with the first of the BS talking points:

  Tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the poor.

  Horsesh*t. The tax breaks were responsible for bringing us out of the recession caused by the Clinton Administration and 9/11. After the tax cuts, the top 20% of taxpayers ended up paying an even higher percentage of income tax than the bottom 80% than they did before the tax cut.

  Casper: Deregulation, where, what and how???

• 22. Joe Bananas..in Pajamas  |  October 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

  So? come on Liberals, where are the specific failed Bush policies that have affected your day to day lives and made it worse for you than you were before the Bush admin?

• 23. tom  |  October 5th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

  I think we should throw the “Cradle to Gravers” out. The House and Senate have become a Union of the worst kind.

  On top od that I would like to see a Bill refusing any Politician from working with/for the Gov in any capacity for 5 years.

  I would like to see Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to collect unemployment.

• 24. Casper  |  October 5th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

  phnx,

  I provided evidence for Mark earlier about the McCain/Palin campaign lying and he blew it off without citing any evidence of his own. How do I know you won’t do the same?

  http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies

  The above link lists 105 lies by the McCain/Palin campaign, documented by 23 different news organizations, including the Wall Street Journal. Read through it. If you agree after reading the information that the McCain/Palin campaign has lied, or you can provide links to equally credible sources disproving every item on the list, then I will be more than happy to provide specifics to how Bush’s economic policies failed. Otherwise, I will assume that you will waste my time just as Mark did.

• 25. cam  |  October 5th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

  Mr. Bananas,
  Your question divorces one of the biggest econmic crisises ever from the body of concerns that affect us all. Its like asking the decapitated guy, other than missing your head, what are you really concerned about?

  Homeowners have lost trillions of dollars in home equity, prices of everything have gone up drastically partly as a result of the increased cost of energy and wages have stagnated. And you ask how has that affected your day to day life? Are you living on the same planet?

• 26. Jeremiah  |  October 5th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  Homeowners have lost trillions of dollars in home equity, prices of everything have gone up drastically partly as a result of the increased cost of energy and wages have stagnated.

  Well, Yeah … and if the Democrats would have paid more attention to Fannie and Freddie we might not have been in this mess, ya think? Err, maybe they wanted to ease up on Fannie and Freddie.

  Maybe if they would have cooperated with President Bush and John McCain people would still be in their homes.

  And you ask how has that affected your day to day life?

  Oh you can bet on it. The Democrats have affected everybody with their trying to sneak Socialism in on us.

  Are you living on the same planet?

  Yeah, I do, and can only hope that Democrats will come back.

• 27. phnx  |  October 5th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

  Casper, based on your statement: “And you would prefer someone who has the same policies as Bush whose policies have recently failed?

  I made no assertions regarding lying. I specifically asked:

  Casper and Rico, I want you to give me specifics of which Bush economic policies failed. I don’t think that either of you can.

  So far you haven’t. I didn’t think that you could.

• 28. Observer20  |  October 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am

  I’m going to have to agree with phnx. You didn’t really answer his question with that response, Casper. Although some of the concerns in that site may be debate worthy, they do not address the issue at hand.

• 29. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 12:21 am

  Actually Jerimiah,
  I was addressing Mr. Bananas. But if thats one of your alias so be it.

  Your sounding like Flip Wilson, the Democrats made me do it, the Democrats made me do it, the Democrats made me do it, the Democrats made me do it.

  Couple of problems there.

  One, Republicans were in the majority 6/8 years Bush was president and did nothing. Hard to blame Democats for that one.

  Two, you can assume that the problem starts and ends with the subprime mortagage mess. In which case you would be wrong. Even so, as noted above, the Repubs had the mojority to get it done and did nothing. Regardless, the point here is that the subprime lending issue is not the end of it.

  Most of the investors who invested in subprime mortagages where investing in derivatives that had been created to “eliminate” the inherent risk associated with the subprime market.

  Further, in order to give cover to those who invested in these derivatives of the subprime mortagages an instrument called a swap, essentially an insurance policy, but without the pesky little regulations that require insurance policies to have actual collateral to back up their policies.

  So, ultimately, we had a lot of real “smart” people investing in derivatives with no understanding of what they were getting into. Further, they were using swaps to back up these shaky transactions, that is they were following up some bad investment decisions with some more of the same. And these were people who were being paid millions of dollars anually to run what many considered sofisticated investment houses like Lehman, Bear Steans and Morgan Stanley.

  The key here is that the people we trusted to invest our money appear to be no better equiped than the average joe. In fact they appear to have less common sense than we do. After all, would you sign up for an insurance policy if you knew that the policy was not backed up by capital?

• 30. phnx  |  October 6th, 2008 at 12:42 am

  Cam, so you watched 50 minuted tonight and now you are and expert on Credit Default Swaps?

  It may interest you to know that the CWS market was approximatley equivalent to the total amount of mortgages and bonds in the market at that time (approx 10 trillion). Immediately following the Dem takeover of COngress in 2006, the CWS market swelled, reaching some 50 trillion today.

  I am still waiting for an answer to the previously posted question regarding Bush’s economic policies.

  If you want to cite the above, the CWS problem resulted from lack of regulation. BOTH the executive and Legislative branches were either asleep at the switch of colluding with all street.

  The later seems quite plausible since Congress (the Dems) opposed the administrations attempt to close the tax loophole which permitted investment banker’s income to be charged at a 15% rate rather than a 36% rate.

  It is not a mere coincidence that the bulk of the money from the wall street firms involved went to the Dems.

• 31. phnx  |  October 6th, 2008 at 12:43 am

  make that 60 Minutes

• 32. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 1:50 am

  phnx,
  The Executive Branch is responsible for enforcement of regulations and it appears that they did not do their duty on this one.

  The Bush administration has regulary shown a disdain for regulations and picks and choses which ones it will enforce. It also using a lack of funding to impact those regulations which it has disagreement.

  Further, it listens closely to individuals like Gover Norquist who has been quoted as saying he would like”to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. This shows disdain for government and in turn regulation.

  Seems that this is direct contrast to the argument that regulation changes to the housing mortagage market could have stopped this disaster from happening.

  Oh, and by the way, I don’t consider myself an expert. Not yet. While I have a better understanding of this mess, I am sure that there is still a lot to learn. But the 60 Minutes peice was quite informative and I found it interresting that it did not make CRA the central cause of this mess like I have seen many of the bloggers try to do here. Further, they did not seem to make Freddie and Fannie the central focus either.

  Ultimately, it appears that it was good old fashioned greed and a lack of regulations that made this thing what it is.

  Oh and that 50 Minutes thing, normally I wouldn’t give it more than about 5 minutes credit as they have definitely strayed from the reservation in regard to investigative jounalism. While they have done a lot of good work, they have allowed good ratings to overtake good jounalism. If I want to see good information without filter I will watch C-Span.

• 33. Jeremiah  |  October 6th, 2008 at 2:01 am

  No, Cam, it was intimidation by those low income community organizers who took advantage of Carter’s 1977 CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) which in turn, created predatory lending practices across the board. One who helped to do this was Madeline Talbott whom Barack Obama is directly tied to with these intimidatory tactics.

  Congress went to sleep at the wheel and well … what do you expect? Nothing train wreck.

  They should have stopped these community organizers in their tracks.

• 34. phnx  |  October 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  “The Executive Branch is responsible for enforcement of regulations.” CAM

  Yes, and the Legislature is responsible for making the LAWS to enforce. They legislature, made no effort to regulate the CDS industry. Why, the same reason they chose not to close the inventment banker tax loophole…they (dems) were getting too much money from the investment banks.

  But nice try.

  OBTW: in reply to your statement that the Republicans were in the majority for 6 of 8 years of the Bush administration…you forget that we had (and have) an number of RINOs, Republicans in name only who can be counted upon to vote with the DEMS on all social issues and financial issues which they think will affect the poor. Nice try again.

• 35. Ricorun  |  October 6th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  phnx, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. The bad news is… I’ve been busy. The good news is… I’ve been busy. Additionally, there seems to be a very small window of opportunity of late for posting anything on this blog. What’s up with that? Apparently the Peter Principle is rearing its ugly head in all sorts of venues of late.

  Anyway, the question you posed to me was, could I name specifics on which Bush economic policies failed. So let’s take it from the top. You said, “The tax breaks were responsible for bringing us out of the recession caused by the Clinton Administration and 9/11. After the tax cuts, the top 20% of taxpayers ended up paying an even higher percentage of income tax than the bottom 80% than they did before the tax cut.”

  First, correlation does not imply causation. I think it’s safe to say that the dot com bubble in particular was just that — a bubble. But it was combined with a number of other things that caused the economic environment to become more toxic than it should have been. The dot com bubble itself was caused by overspeculation. People were investing in companies with ridiculous P/E ratios — many of which were little more than on-line catalogs — hoping against hope that they were somehow the wave of the future. Maybe yes, maybe no. But either way, that alone affected only speculators. Ya puts your money up and ya takes your chances. There were other issues that compounded those problems — namely, it became apparent that several large companies were gaming their books to make it look like various types of liabilities were paper assets (think Enron, Tyco, even Martha Stewart, among others). However, Bush used it as an excuse to reward the speculators with tax cuts.

  But those weren’t the first ones — the first tax cuts were designed more “equitably”, meaning that they were broadly focused. That first wave of tax cuts were rationalized as “giving back to the taxpayers the surpluses realized in recent revenues”. Of course, as Dasein has indicated so eloquently many times here (and with whom I’ve had a few “discussions” about the proper definitions of “equitable”, “fair”, and “efficient”, hehe), there never, ever was anything that could truly be called a surplus. So that’s problem number one vis-a-vis problems with Bush’s economic policies. Add on top of that the fact that the first wave of tax cuts eliminated the better part of the lowest half of the working population from the federal income tax rolls. Ever since then we’ve been hearing the charges you have enunciated, phnx: After the tax cuts, the top 20% of taxpayers ended up paying an even higher percentage of income tax than the bottom 80% than they did before the tax cut. It’s true. But given the circumstances (i.e., once the better part of the lowest half of the working population is eliminated) it could not possibly be otherwise. I mean come on, do the math. In the process, also keep in mind that it’s also true that the top 20% of taxpayers are paying less of a percentage of their income as taxes than before. The end result is that there is less tax revenues — not only as a percentage of GDP, but on gross. For a short time there in 2007 revenues from personal income taxes finally peaked over what they were prior to the dot com bubble many years before. That is, assuming you didn’t adjust for inflation. If you did, then the only thing that saved the numbers was the fact that revenues from business income finally closed the overall gap in early 2006. So what does McCain want to do? He wants to lower business taxes, among others. If he gets his way, the cuts in government spending, including defense, will have to be very deep indeed. He can kiss his nuclear power plants goodbye for one. And that’s just for starters.

  Actually, I’m in favor of reducing business taxes. But I’m also in favor of a more European model, which is to say lower business taxes need to be counterbalanced by higher personal taxes. If you want to keep the money in business, the businesses on shore, and still have enough money to keep the government functioning, that’s the way to go, IMO. But Bush hasn’t done that. Rather, he has pursued a tax policy that was the most politically expedient but the least sustainable. And that’s just with regard to the tax issue. And as many economists have pointed out, McCain’s stated policies will make matters worse.

  On top of that Bush caved to every freakin’ piece of pork the congress served up, while they caved on just about every piece of pork he served up. As I recall, Bush used his veto power exactly once prior to 2007. And it had very little to do with the economy. It was more of a social conservative issue (which could potentially impact the economy in the future).

  Also in the mean time, both the Afghan and Iraq wars have been fought almost entirely on the dole. And that is something McCain was against before he was for it. Kinda like the recent Wall St. bailout bill, only in reverse.

  Should I go on? And what are the chances you will reciprocate in any detail?

• 36. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

  phnx,
  So, assuming that you are correct and it was the Dems who got the majority of the money from investment bankers why would someone like Waxman be giving the CEO of Lehman Bros such a beating? Kind of goes against the don’t bite the hand that feeds you theory.

  Further, are you saying the clock on this fiasco started in 2006?

  Also, you are aware that for enforcement to work those agencies that carry it out must be funded? If Bush didn’t like a law he just didn’t provide the resources necessary to do the job. That concept comes right from Grover.

• 37. phnx  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

  Rico,

  If it will make you feel any better let’s not callit the CLinton recession, nevertheless a recession is what Bush inherited.

  You assertion that Bush’s tax break was designed to reward speculators is compete balderdash supported by no facts.

  Your assertion that total income tax revenues decreased as a result of the tax breaks is a blatant LIE.

  The following is taken directly from the IRS:

  Total individual tax revenues
  =
  2003 - $974,543,079,000
  2004 - $1,036,118,363,000
  2005 - $1,083,700,046,000
  2006 - $1,189,243,053,000

  Check it out.

  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab1.xls

  OBTW the percentage of tax paid by the top 1% increase from 33.9 to 39.9 under Bush.

  You failed to name ONE economic policy of Bush that was a failure. The only thing you got right was your agreement that corporate tax should be reduced.

  Next time present facts rather than rhetoric.

• 38. phnx  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

  “…why would someone like Waxman be giving the CEO of Lehman Bros such a beating?”Cam

  You can’t be that naive. If I have to explain you wouldn’t understand.

  “are you saying the clock on this fiasco started in 2006?”

  No, but it sure accelerated from that point on. It must have been just a cooincidence that the Dems were incharge of Congress.

  Cam, exactly what is it that you don’t understand about the fact that the CDS industry was NOT REGULATED, and it was up to the DEM CONGRESS to write the laws to so that they could be enforced.

  Cam, my recommendation to you is read more and comment less. You seem like a nice well meaning person but your comments don’t enhance your credibility.

• 39. Casper  |  October 6th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  phnx,
  Before you call someone a liar, you might actually read the document you supply.
  From your source:

  Total individual tax revenues=
  2001-$1,076,500,696
  2002-$953,697,397
  2003 - $974,543,079,000
  2004 - $1,036,118,363,000
  2005 - $1,083,700,046,000
  2006 - $1,189,243,053,000

  There was a $122,000,000 drop between 2001 and 2002. Tax revenues didn’t pass the 2001 amount until 2005, and even then it wasn’t by much.

  I assume you just made a mistake.

• 40. phnx  |  October 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  Casper,

  A minor point. The recession was reason for the tax cuts. Revenues would still not have passed 2001 if it weren’t for the tax cuts, which BTW were phased in and therefore haven’t had their full impact until recently.

• 41. Ricorun  |  October 6th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

  phnx, I went so far as to convert the numbers you provided from the IRS into “real” (inflation adjusted) dollars using CPI numbers I obtained from the BLS. This is what I came up with (you’ll have to deal with the formatting problems):

  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
  Adjusted Gross Income 6,365,376,648.00 6,170,603,942.00 6,033,585,532.00 6,207,108,793.00 6,788,805,130.00 7,422,495,663.00 8,030,842,945.00
  Taxes Paid (unadjusted) 1,084,868,447.00 1,076,500,696.00 953,697,397.00 974,543,079.00 1,036,118,363.00 1,083,700,046.00 1,189,243,053.00
  Tax Rate 0.1704 0.1745 0.1581 0.1570 0.1526 0.1460 0.1481
  Consumer Price Index 1.0000 1.0280 1.0160 1.0230 1.0270 1.0340 1.0320
  CPI Factor (2000 dollars) 1.0000 0.9728 0.9574 0.9359 0.9113 0.8813 0.8540
  AGI (real) 6,365,376,648.00 6,002,533,017.51 5,776,817,545.73 5,809,341,419.94 6,186,719,738.14 6,541,788,723.26 6,858,481,898.61
  Taxes Paid (real) 1,084,868,447.00 1,047,179,665.37 913,111,420.58 912,091,871.30 944,227,121.66 955,114,972.40 1,015,634,598.75

  The bottom line is that although real adjusted gross income surpassed 2001 numbers by 2004 (and 2000 numbers by 2005), real tax revenues still haven’t — not from individual returns anyway.

  The above numbers don’t document every word I said (that would take more numbers, although I assure you the result would be the same). But the above numbers do document everything I said to which they pertain. And the bottom line is… you’re demonstrably wrong.

• 42. Casper  |  October 6th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  phnx,
  Interesting. If it were my mistake I would have admitted it and apologized to Rico for calling him a liar.

• 43. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 11:55 pm

  phnx,
  Yes. I am that naive. Please explain. I thought it was Obama but it is you who come off as the elitist. Go ahead, I’ll take the test after the lecture if you just answer the question.

  My point is that there appears to be an inconsistency here. You have indicated your belief that it is Dems who are taking the money from bankers. If that is the case it looks like those bankers really don’t have a clue. Why would you give your money to someone who doesn’t play the game. I know these guys are incompetent but why would they give a bat to a guy who is about to give them a beating?

  And lastly, are you serious when you ask for more regulation. If that is the case you must explain why McCain regulary repeats his belief that less regulation is the answer. Once again, this appears to be a contradiction. Also, you do realize that the majorities that the Dems had over the past 2 years were very slim and the Repubs set records with filibusters. Yeah now you call for more regulations. But that has hardly been the backbone of Republican politics.

• 44. cam  |  October 7th, 2008 at 12:01 am

  phnx,
  Are you still at the lectern ready to do some teaching to the naive or are you looking for a way to cover your nakedness? Its not just reading but writing and arithmetic. It looks like you missed out on the arithmetic.

  Lies, damn lies and statistics. Sometimes its hard to tell the difference.

• 45. Mark Noonan  |  October 7th, 2008 at 12:47 am

  cam,

  Try to grasp this concept - the people who ran our financial system into the ground are almost all Democrats, both in terms of bankers and politicians.

  You see, you have been bamboozled into thinking that the liberals and the leftists are for the little guy against the Big, Bad Corporation…they’re not. The dirty little secret in politics is that Big Government and Big Corporation are hand and glove…that you cannot see this indicates a massive failure in your education. Its plain as a pikestaff - all you have to do is look at the cast of characters and draw lines between friends and associates…what will often be missing entirely is Republicans.

• 46. cam  |  October 7th, 2008 at 12:55 am

  So Mark you would have me beleve that Dems would take money from bankers who are also Democrats and then instead of following through would turn on each other and commence the beatings?

  All Democrats - what proof do you have? Or is this another case of lots of allegations should be sufficient to require the innocent to prove their innocence?

• 47. Mark Noonan  |  October 7th, 2008 at 1:22 am

  cam,

  No, they’ll do what they’ve done - engineer a so-far successful cover up, sadly with the help of GOPers who looked at the situation and realized that any attempt at this moment in time to call the Democrats to account would leave our financial system in crisis until we slipped into a full blown economic depression. We on our side do actually put country first.

  Personally, I would have had our side go entirely to bat for the unvarnished truth - Democrats created this problem and prevented all efforts to stop it before it blew up in our faces (the GOP failure here was the failure of Bush in 2003 to strenuously push his proposed reforms) - if this caused a complete melt-down in the financial system, then so be it - allow the Democrats to be saddled with the depression they created…but we have a war to win, Supreme Court Justices to appoint and a Culture of Life to advance and defend…

• 48. cam  |  October 7th, 2008 at 1:27 am

  Mark,
  Which one are you? The “we” of the “I”?

• 49. Ricorun  |  October 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  Mark: Try to grasp this concept - the people who ran our financial system into the ground are almost all Democrats, both in terms of bankers and politicians.

  You see, you have been bamboozled into thinking that the liberals and the leftists are for the little guy against the Big, Bad Corporation…they’re not. The dirty little secret in politics is that Big Government and Big Corporation are hand and glove…that you cannot see this indicates a massive failure in your education. Its plain as a pikestaff - all you have to do is look at the cast of characters and draw lines between friends and associates…what will often be missing entirely is Republicans.

  What a freakin’ load, Mark. You are mixing concepts that shouldn’t be mixed, and trying to spin the result as some kind of partisan conspiracy. It isn’t.

  There is one thing I agree with in your tirade, and that is this: The dirty little secret in politics is that Big Government and Big Corporation are hand and glove… But while I agree with that notion, it implies nothing vis-a-vis some kind of Dem/Rep distinction. There are individuals on both sides that are culpable and those that are not. To argue the way you do requires selective perception in the extreme.

  Many times in the past, both on this blog and more privately among friends I have met here, I have stated that the way forward will require “strange bedfellows”, meaning that the true battle lines will not be drawn on the basis of traditional partisan affiliation, but between entrenched interests vs. innovators, both in business and government.

  Perhaps if I were supremely arrogant I would suggest that the failure to see that “indicates a massive failure in your education.” But I’m not, so I won’t. But it really is “plain as a pikestaff” to me.

• 50. phnx  |  October 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pm

  Rico,

  I have no idea what you have presented. Please do some in some fashion that permits analysis.

• 51. Ricorun  |  October 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

  phnx, here’s how to read what I reported:
  Each “line” contains seven values, one each for the years 2000 - 2006. The definition of the values contained on each line are as follows:

  Adjusted Gross Income: raw values exactly as are reported by the IRS.
  Taxes Paid (unadjusted): Total revenues, again in raw values, exactly as reported by the IRS.
  Tax Rate: Simply the Taxes Paid (unadjusted) divided by the AGI, are reported in the first two lines. I threw this in simply to show the general trend in how much people made and how much they paid in taxes in proportion to it. It also helps to illuminate how irrelevant your statement about “the percentage of tax paid by the top 1% increased from 33.9 to 39.9 under Bush” really is. Your numbers reflect the percentage of total tax revenues contributed by that group. It does not reflect the percentage of their own income they contribute as taxes. The distinction is an important one, but it seems to get lost on many people — and therefore misconstrued.
  Consumer Price Index: these numbers I got from the BLS, and they are a measure of inflation. For example, a value of 1.0280 means the inflation rate was 2.80% greater than the year before.
  CPI Factor: This is a comulative measure of the effect of inflation relative to the dollar value in the year 2000. For example, in 2000 the dollar value is defined as “1.000″. In 2001 it is 1/1.0280. In 2002 it is the product of the previous equation divided by 1.0160, and so on. Thus, by 2006 the value of a 2000 dollar was 85.40 cents.
  AGI (real): the raw adjusted gross income values reported in the first line multiplied by the corresponding “CPI Factor”, as defined above. This adjusts all the values to their 2000 dollar equivalent to obtain “real”, or equivalent, worth.
  Taxes Paid (real): the raw tax revenue values reported in the second line multiplied by the corresponding “CPI Factor” to adjust these values to their 2000 dollar equivalents.

  Now do you follow? It’s the last two lines (the real AGI and real taxes paid) that deserve the most scrutiny. The raw values don’t mean much until you adjust them for inflation. I don’t understand why more people don’t appreciate that.

  Granted, a more detailed analysis would be even more illuminating. For example, it would be interesting to break down income-earners into quintiles or deciles and examine income gains/losses over the years in each. But I don’t have the time to do that.