If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   The problem for advocacy groups is that in the internet era, when you publish a hilariously inaccurate chart predicting, say, the 10-year effect of the Bush tax cuts, it can be instantly retrieved so we can all point and laught at at you   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 101
    More: Amusing, Bush Tax Cuts, advocacy group, adverse effect, tax cuts  
•       •       •

7750 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 2:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-26 11:07:51 AM
The tax cuts would so stimulate the economy that the government would start bringing in extra money starting in 2008.

Uh, subby? Who was elected president in 2008? Hm?

Here's a hint. His name rhymes with Shamalamalingadongobama.

Unfortunately, the Heritage Foundation could not have predicted McCain's loss in 2008. If they could have, obviously, their chart would have looked very different.

In the future, try to avoid cherry picking details in some Quixotic quest to make one side look "bad." It's pathetic, really.
 
2012-11-26 11:27:25 AM
What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.
 
2012-11-26 11:36:22 AM

ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.


And yet, when those thing DID actually happen, and thus invalidated the already dubious premises on which the Tax cut was based, do you remember the rush of "fiscal conservatives" getting up on thier soapboxes and loudly demanding repeal of the tax cuts due to these unforseen circumstances that invalidated the revenue projections?

Yeah. Me Neither.
 
2012-11-26 11:40:35 AM
What actually happened.

Link, .pdf
 
2012-11-26 11:42:19 AM

ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.


Hahahahaha. So the rubes just kept on eating the shiat instead, eh?
 
2012-11-26 11:54:16 AM

Pocket Ninja: Unfortunately, the Heritage Foundation could not have predicted McCain's loss in 2008. If they could have, obviously, their chart would have looked very different.


Allow me to quote from The Signal and the Noise:

"When you make a prediction that goes so badly, you have a choice of how to explain it. One path is to blame external circumstances - what we might think of as "bad luck". Sometimes, this is a reasonable choice, or even the correct one. When the National Weather Service says there is a 90 percent chance of clear skies, but it rains instead and spoils your golf outing, you can't really blame them. Decades of historical data show that when the Weather Service says there is a 1 in 10 chance of rain, it really does rain about 10 percent of the time over the long run.

This explanation becomes less credible, however, when the forecaster does not have a history of successful predictions and then the magnitude of his error is larger. In these cases, it is much more likely that the fault lies with the forecaster's model of the world, and not with the world itself."

Seems pretty spot-on. So does this:

"Nobody saw it coming. When you can't state your innocence, proclaim your ignorance: this is often the first line of defense when there is a failed forecast."
 
2012-11-26 12:06:48 PM

ArkAngel: The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks


Yeah, we'd need some sort of memo for that.
 
2012-11-26 12:10:49 PM

ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.


Yeah, that's why the Bush tax cuts failed. Keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-11-26 12:19:16 PM
So deficits don't go down when revenue does? Ya don't say!
 
2012-11-26 12:26:12 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.

Yeah, that's why the Bush tax cuts failed. Keep farking that chicken.


Quoted directly from the source:

Produce positive economic "feedback" for the Treasury. Static estimates that do not account for the tax relief's influence on the economy suggest that President Bush's plan would decrease revenues to the federal Treasury by $1.7 trillion over 11 years.24 However, a dynamic analysis using the WEFA model suggests that, because the tax relief would increase economic growth and employment, the larger tax base would generate $583 billion in tax revenue that is unaccounted for in a static analysis (see Chart 3). In other words, when the proposed tax relief's effect on economic performance is taken into account, the actual loss to the Treasury is just 66.1 percent of the purely static reduction in tax revenues over 11 years.

In other words, "Tax cuts generate revenue!" [citation needed]
 
2012-11-26 12:27:15 PM
a decade of bush tax cuts = zero job growth.
 
2012-11-26 12:28:57 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.

Yeah, that's why the Bush tax cuts failed. Keep farking that chicken.


I'm not saying the Bush tax cuts failed or succeeded. I'm saying long-term revenue projections are a study in failure from either side
 
2012-11-26 12:47:04 PM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.

Yeah, that's why the Bush tax cuts failed. Keep farking that chicken.

I'm not saying the Bush tax cuts failed or succeeded. I'm saying long-term revenue projections are a study in failure from either side


True, but only one side uses "reduce taxes, increase revenue" logic.
 
2012-11-26 12:48:56 PM

whistleridge: Pocket Ninja: Unfortunately, the Heritage Foundation could not have predicted McCain's loss in 2008. If they could have, obviously, their chart would have looked very different.

Allow me to quote from The Signal and the Noise:

"When you make a prediction that goes so badly, you have a choice of how to explain it. One path is to blame external circumstances - what we might think of as "bad luck". Sometimes, this is a reasonable choice, or even the correct one. When the National Weather Service says there is a 90 percent chance of clear skies, but it rains instead and spoils your golf outing, you can't really blame them. Decades of historical data show that when the Weather Service says there is a 1 in 10 chance of rain, it really does rain about 10 percent of the time over the long run.

This explanation becomes less credible, however, when the forecaster does not have a history of successful predictions and then the magnitude of his error is larger. In these cases, it is much more likely that the fault lies with the forecaster's model of the world, and not with the world itself."

Seems pretty spot-on. So does this:

"Nobody saw it coming. When you can't state your innocence, proclaim your ignorance: this is often the first line of defense when there is a failed forecast."


Yet people still watch the weather everyday? Here in Oklahoma we joke that "meteorologist" is Navaho for liar. It goes to our core need to try to predict the future. Same for global warming, CBO reports or revenue projections. We can't account for Black Swan events. Volcano blow up, global unrest crashes economies and we elect people that have never meet a regulation they didn't like.
 
2012-11-26 12:53:04 PM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.

Yeah, that's why the Bush tax cuts failed. Keep farking that chicken.

I'm not saying the Bush tax cuts failed or succeeded. I'm saying long-term revenue projections are a study in failure from either side


Both sides are bad.
 
2012-11-26 12:58:28 PM

GAT_00: Both sides are bad.


neither side is as bad as you so
 
2012-11-26 01:35:20 PM

ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.


therefore, the predictions should have included (maybe the did in the little words), times and events which would require tax increases?

Didnt have any of those did they?
2 wars? increase taxes
massive terrorist attacks? increase taxes
massive recession? increase taxes

in the end, 10 year predictions are worthless
 
2012-11-26 01:42:25 PM

whistleridge: When the National Weather Service says there is a 90 percent chance of clear skies, but it rains instead and spoils your golf outing, you can't really blame them. Decades of historical data show that when the Weather Service says there is a 1 in 10 chance of rain, it really does rain about 10 percent of the time over the long run.


I think Silver failed to emphasize that the weather service has improved their accuracy of their uncertainty, rather than their accuracy of prediction.

The difference being, an increase in the accuracy of prediction would result in more 10% or 90% forecasts, and fewer 50% forecasts.

To a statistician, accuracy of uncertainty is a big deal, but most people really don't care about it, or realize what it means.
 
2012-11-26 01:46:17 PM
OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus
 
2012-11-26 01:53:47 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus


The ones made when it was proposed or after it was slashed down and weakened with ineffective tax cuts so Republicans still wouldn't vote for it?
 
2012-11-26 01:57:48 PM
These are the same yahoos who said the Iraq war would only cost 1.something billion and last 6 months. But these are the "serious" opinionists and everyone who disagrees is a dirty, farking hippy (regardless of who ends up being right).
 
2012-11-26 02:10:34 PM

ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.


Or the effect of two unfunded wars kept off the books?
 
2012-11-26 02:16:15 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus


which one? the one he wanted to do or the one that Republicans let him have?
 
2012-11-26 02:16:48 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus


So they increased taxes to pay for these events?
So these events were then incorporated into the predictions producing new results?
So when the 2007 market crash hit, they updated their predictions?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT
These predictions were able to forecast the housing bubble and economic collapse right?
Because those events had NOTHING to do with 9/11, katrina, or the wars, right?

RIGHT???
 
2012-11-26 02:17:32 PM

Pocket Ninja: The tax cuts would so stimulate the economy that the government would start bringing in extra money starting in 2008.

Uh, subby? Who was elected president in 2008? Hm?

Here's a hint. His name rhymes with Shamalamalingadongobama.

Unfortunately, the Heritage Foundation could not have predicted McCain's loss in 2008. If they could have, obviously, their chart would have looked very different.

In the future, try to avoid cherry picking details in some Quixotic quest to make one side look "bad." It's pathetic, really.


Bravo. Bravo.
 
2012-11-26 02:20:27 PM

Hobodeluxe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus

which one? the one he wanted to do or the one that Republicans let him have?


Serious question: Do you know of a place where they are compared so that I can see the difference?
 
2012-11-26 02:20:42 PM
Republican math doesn't matter if it doesn't really add up as long as the plutocrats still get paid.
 
2012-11-26 02:20:58 PM

GAT_00: IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus

The ones made when it was proposed or after it was slashed down and weakened with ineffective tax cuts so Republicans still wouldn't vote for it?


The bush tax cuts were weakened as well by dem opposition (top rate was originally going to be 33%), and also made temporary as a result of dem opposition.

So if you are trying to say that the original Obama proposal would have worked if it werent for those meddling republicans, then the GOP could use the same retarded argument to defend the tax cuts.
 
2012-11-26 02:21:17 PM
Three irrefutable rebuttals:

9/11 changed everything

The financial system, burdened by decades of liberals forcing banks to write terrible mortgages for poor people and minorities, finally collapsed in 2008 when the radioactive emissions from Barney Frank's supergay peener popped the housing bubble.

The economy shut down in 2008 because of the outrageous tax increases imposed by Taxbongo, the immense cost of the mandates and regulations of 0bongocare, the immoral theft of the job creators' life savings to fund the extravagant lifestyles of the worthless 47 percenters, and the immense loss of revenues inflicted on the retail sector caused by the muslim-in-chief's annual War on Christmas.

Suck it libs!

/that last one is a paraphrase of my dad's Thanksgiving dinner rant
 
2012-11-26 02:22:48 PM

sdd2000: ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.

Or the effect of two unfunded wars kept off the books?


Myth. The wars were always included in the fed debt and annual federal deficit. They were funded off budget by supplemental appropriation, which is what you are thinking of.
 
2012-11-26 02:23:16 PM
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that the chart says "Uncommotted Funds". Heritage fail.
 
2012-11-26 02:24:45 PM

jst3p: Hobodeluxe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus

which one? the one he wanted to do or the one that Republicans let him have?

Serious question: Do you know of a place where they are compared so that I can see the difference?


And the country did improve under Obama's stimulus. You might argue that it didn't turn out exactly what was predicted but at least it was close. The GOP predictions are the opposite of reality.
 
2012-11-26 02:25:08 PM
The Bush Tax Cuts would have worked too, if it hadn't been for you meddling realities!
 
2012-11-26 02:25:59 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The bush tax cuts were weakened as well by dem opposition (top rate was originally going to be 33%), and also made temporary as a result of dem opposition.

So if you are trying to say that the original Obama proposal would have worked if it werent for those meddling republicans, then the GOP could use the same retarded argument to defend the tax cuts.


Could only use that if you believe in the supply side fairy tale while also believing that Keynesian economics is bullshiat.
 
2012-11-26 02:26:00 PM

FooDog: Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that the chart says "Uncommotted Funds". Heritage fail.


I was wondering what that meant. I thought it was some economics jargon.

I'm still getting over the fact that it looks like the Heritage Foundation made that chart on an iMac.
 
2012-11-26 02:26:12 PM

FooDog: Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that the chart says "Uncommotted Funds". Heritage fail.


You're not the only one. But you were the first to point it out, which may be worth something.
 
2012-11-26 02:26:13 PM

namatad: These predictions were able to forecast the housing bubble and economic collapse right?
Because those events had NOTHING to do with 9/11, katrina, or the wars, right?


Not these predictions, apparently, but most off-the-cuff predictions by even non-experts predicted the housing bubble popping (not hard, we're on like the twentieth verse of that song and it's still same as the first), the predictions just missed the severity of this particular time.

And, no, it had more or less nothing to do with the wars or 9/11. Had a bit to do with Katrina, but that relationship is pretty minimal, too, since it wasn't ever a major housing market to begin.

//If you didn't see the housing bubble popping and taking some traders down with it coming, you fail not only basic economics forever, but also US history forever. Half or more of our major recessions/depressions have been fueled by spikes in real estate speculation, at the very least it's a consistent leading indicator that shiat's going down in the next decade or so.
 
2012-11-26 02:27:58 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus

The ones made when it was proposed or after it was slashed down and weakened with ineffective tax cuts so Republicans still wouldn't vote for it?

The bush tax cuts were weakened as well by dem opposition (top rate was originally going to be 33%), and also made temporary as a result of dem opposition.

So if you are trying to say that the original Obama proposal would have worked if it werent for those meddling republicans, then the GOP could use the same retarded argument to defend the tax cuts.


Not really. The bush tax cuts made things worse, logically more would have been even worse. The economy is improving by almost every measure, more stimulus might have the economy improving faster.

In one case we get the opposite of what was sold to us. In the other we got "it isn't getting better as fast as you said it would!"

Not very comprable.
 
2012-11-26 02:32:13 PM

Corvus: jst3p: Hobodeluxe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus

which one? the one he wanted to do or the one that Republicans let him have?

Serious question: Do you know of a place where they are compared so that I can see the difference?

And the country did improve under Obama's stimulus. You might argue that it didn't turn out exactly what was predicted but at least it was close. The GOP predictions are the opposite of reality.


We could have sat on our asses and watched the economy directionally improve since 2009. that's how economies go. They reach a bottom or peak and revert. The stimulus may have helped or it may have been utterly useless, but you can't say it worked by looking solely at the modest growth since 2009 without considering all exogenous variables.

And it wasn't close, IIRC. Didn't the Obama administration project that it would keep unemployment below 8%?
 
2012-11-26 02:33:36 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: GAT_00: IamKaiserSoze!!!: OK, 9/11, two wars and Katrina got in the way.

Go back and look at the projections for Obama's fiscal stimulus

The ones made when it was proposed or after it was slashed down and weakened with ineffective tax cuts so Republicans still wouldn't vote for it?

The bush tax cuts were weakened as well by dem opposition (top rate was originally going to be 33%), and also made temporary as a result of dem opposition.

So if you are trying to say that the original Obama proposal would have worked if it werent for those meddling republicans, then the GOP could use the same retarded argument to defend the tax cuts.


Ah, Republican logic. Tax cuts didn't work, we need more tax cuts! Those didn't work either? Well we just need MOAR cuts! That'll magically fix everything!
 
2012-11-26 02:33:58 PM
weird that the Heritage Foundation did not forecast the impact of 9/11 or of the wars or of all the spending the dems approved after 2007.
 
2012-11-26 02:34:00 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: We could have sat on our asses and watched the economy directionally improve since 2009. that's how economies go. They reach a bottom or peak and revert. The stimulus may have helped or it may have been utterly useless, but you can't say it worked by looking solely at the modest growth since 2009 without considering all exogenous variables.


I dunno, I hate to imagine what would've happened if we didn't bail GM out.

(Remember: There were no prospective buyers so the most likely thing that would've happened was that it would've gone into liquidation and put thousands of people out of work on the spot)
 
2012-11-26 02:34:31 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: We could have sat on our asses and watched the economy directionally improve since 2009. that's how economies go. They reach a bottom or peak and revert. The stimulus may have helped or it may have been utterly useless, but you can't say it worked by looking solely at the modest growth since 2009 without considering all exogenous variables.


No they don't look at the great depression it didn't "just magically get better" depressions have a negative cycle. You know nothing of history if you are unaware of that.

Modest growth? growth was higher during the main stimulus than it now.
 
2012-11-26 02:34:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: weird that the Heritage Foundation did not forecast the impact of 9/11 or of the wars or of all the spending the dems approved after 2007.


The party of personal responsibility, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2012-11-26 02:35:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: weird that the Heritage Foundation did not forecast the impact of 9/11 or of the wars or of all the spending the dems approved after 2007.


Because prior to 2007, we were in the green making budget surpluses amiright?

I guess we did...7 years prior to 2007 that is.
 
2012-11-26 02:36:36 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: but you can't say it worked by looking solely at the modest growth


The quarter after the stimulus passed saw the biggest improvement in job in 30 years.
 
2012-11-26 02:37:44 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: sdd2000: ArkAngel: What the chart rally shows is the impossibility of long-term revenue projections. The chart couldn't predict the 9/11 attacks or the collapse of the housing bubble.

Or the effect of two unfunded wars kept off the books?

Myth. The wars were always included in the fed debt and annual federal deficit. They were funded off budget by supplemental appropriation, which is what you are thinking of.


That's why the 2007 budget showed a deficit of ~163 billion in 2007 but the national debt grew by ~$1 Trillion that year.
 
2012-11-26 02:38:51 PM

Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: The bush tax cuts were weakened as well by dem opposition (top rate was originally going to be 33%), and also made temporary as a result of dem opposition.

So if you are trying to say that the original Obama proposal would have worked if it werent for those meddling republicans, then the GOP could use the same retarded argument to defend the tax cuts.

Could only use that if you believe in the supply side fairy tale while also believing that Keynesian economics is bullshiat.


Both have limits, but I see where you are coming from. Tripling of the Obama stimulus may not have led to the fulfillment of his laughably optimistic projections, but directionally it probably helped.

Whereas cutting taxes from where they were to where they are was never going to result in an increase in revenue.

Your point is well taken too, js3tp.
 
2012-11-26 02:40:37 PM

whistleridge: Pocket Ninja: Unfortunately, the Heritage Foundation could not have predicted McCain's loss in 2008. If they could have, obviously, their chart would have looked very different.

Allow me to quote from The Signal and the Noise:

"When you make a prediction that goes so badly, you have a choice of how to explain it. One path is to blame external circumstances - what we might think of as "bad luck". Sometimes, this is a reasonable choice, or even the correct one. When the National Weather Service says there is a 90 percent chance of clear skies, but it rains instead and spoils your golf outing, you can't really blame them. Decades of historical data show that when the Weather Service says there is a 1 in 10 chance of rain, it really does rain about 10 percent of the time over the long run.

This explanation becomes less credible, however, when the forecaster does not have a history of successful predictions and then the magnitude of his error is larger. In these cases, it is much more likely that the fault lies with the forecaster's model of the world, and not with the world itself."

Seems pretty spot-on. So does this:

"Nobody saw it coming. When you can't state your innocence, proclaim your ignorance: this is often the first line of defense when there is a failed forecast."


Only problem in this case is they were lying to begin with. Anybody who has ever looked at US revenue historically will see that when taxes are cut US government revenue decreases, it has never increased once in the history of the US because of tax cuts.
 
2012-11-26 02:45:53 PM

jst3p: Not really. The bush tax cuts made things worse, logically more would have been even worse. The economy is improving by almost every measure, more stimulus might have the economy improving faster


I just do not understand how the Bush tax cuts made the economy worse. He inflated spending while increasing the discressionary funds of the middle class, which most Keynesian here would state that this would boost economic output. About the only thing it did was inflate the debt.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report