One of four interesting charts
Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Years Ago? – A BuzzFlash Perspective
Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Years Ago?
Politicians lie, but numbers don’t. How does the economic record of Bush, Jr. (and Sr.) stand up against Clinton’s on Unemployment, Job Creation, the Stock Market, and the Budget Surplus/Deficit. No one statistic paints a true picture, but taken together, life under a Bush is dark and not very prosperous.
Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives? Were they replaced by clones? Curiously, I was always convinced that Clinton was a Republican and Bush a Democrat underneath the facade. Seriously.
Why do so many ordinary people of which you are one in this area, work such complex economic stats. Plot this crap against one of the great bubbles in our economic times and you get another result. Tie that to the favorite pol and voila! you have a President. Blog blah.
Give Bush a break. Being President is hard.
LOL!
Left out a link: http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/003218.html
A convenient oversimplification. Let’s play with those numbers a bit. First, remove the DotCom boom. Second, take the billions lost in the month of so after 9/11 and factor those into the equation. Why? Because 9/11 is a direct result of all those Clinton defense budget cuts which included the intelligence community and specifically human intelligence.
Suddenly the picture isn’t so different. Further, if you think these deficits are bad, you should look into what your boy Kerry has inline if he gets elected.
What is clear from all of this is that the Federal government, since WWII, seems unable to live within its means. There is no question that our budget deficits are astronomical. The relative impact of that debt is debatable but it clearly has an impact. Clinton, to his credit, did take some of that surplus and pay down the national debt. I don’t have a solution, but this is yet another siutation where the people have no means to rise up and force the Federal governement to change.
Clinton had all the benefits of the tech boom and the taxes that flowed in from that, plus no wars if you don’t count that battleship that got turned around in Haiti’s harbor by a few thugs with pop guns. He also had a gung-ho Republican Congress that actually made some minor changes — selling off a government building, getting rid of the elevator operator and daily ice deliveries, amongst other wasteful excesses — before getting cold feet. (Really, that school lunch thing was the death of them. They tried to raise the funding for the program and were accused of starving children.)
Bush 42 had an attack on Wall Street and a war. Bush 40 made the mistake of increasing taxes and losing jobs from it and stifling the economy. Oh, and a war to fund.
The numbers are cute and the chart is easy to look at, but always be wary of stats without meaning.
-Augie
As for Bush’s vacations – Michael Moore’s arguments are bunk. Those “vacation days” count time spent at Camp David, often in briefing sessions and meetings. Those vacation days count time when he still met with heads of state on official business, sometimes at his ranch.
Again, it’s meaningless statistics with one picture that try to tell a story under false pretenses.
There are some great details about Bush’s “vacation time” here:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Scroll down to “Bush Vacations” and see how many bills Bush signed into law, how many conventions and factories he spoke out, how many security briefings, etc. he had while on “vacation.”
Oh, so these are all bogus and we’re in a boom. Hm. Who knew?
I see a lot of “Clinton doesn’t deserve any credit”, “it’s not Bush’s fault”, “let’s act like we live in an alternate reality”, etc. But no one wants to answer the actual question:
“Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Years Ago?”
The answer is pretty clearly “no.”
Ironically, in May of 2004, President Bush said, “The culture needs to be changed. I call it, so people can understand what I’m talking about, changing the culture from one that says, “If it feels good, do it, and if you’ve got a problem, blame somebody else,” to a culture in which each of us understands we’re responsible for the decisions we make in life. I call it the responsibility era.”
Yet his staunchest supporters do everything to deflect responsibility for our current situation to external forces and away from Bush. The article doesn’t even actually make the argument that it’s Bush’s fault (although, clearly implied) so Bush defenders are left to throw up defenses and deflections in every direction.
All in defiance of the simple question, “Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Years Ago?”
Ignoring who is at fault for the condition, who can answer this in the affirmative? Or, more particularly, can we say the it of the country as a whole?
Congress spends the money not the President. Notice the surplus in Clinton’s second term occured after the Republicans took control. (Despite his opposition)
Concerning the current deficit… How quickly people forget 9-11.
Clinton rode on the military that Reagan rebuilt and while using up those resources, (we ran out of cruise missle at one point) worked with congress to emasculte the military. So after Clinton mortgaged the future, Bush jr is now has to pay for it. (congress really)
It is not so bad, the deficit has to be looked at as a percent of GNP. As soon as the economy heats up, the deficit can be absorbed if new spending can be slowed.
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure
– Mark Twain
I will now confuse people, by quoting more than one comment!
Augie wrote: Clinton had all the benefits of the tech boom and the taxes that flowed in from that, plus no wars if you dont count that battleship that got turned around in Haitis harbor by a few thugs with pop guns.
But, since only a small number of Americans were being killed by those “few thugs with pop guns”, there was no support at home for American causalties. especially when Clinton’s attempts at military actions were always scoffed-at because he was A. a “dope-smoking draft-dodger” – or B. Trying to deflect attention from the Monica fiasco. (I like how Republicans stopped using the phrase “draft-dodger” when the current administration came to power).
Sad to say, but Bush (42) only had “a war” because a large number of Americans had been killed. Clinton only had the embassies in Africa bombed, and the USS Cole attacked – nothing that would generate enough support for full-blown military actions, especially while that dispute in the former Yugoslavia was dragging-on.
Thomas wrote: Clinton, to his credit, did take some of that surplus and pay down the national debt.
I have normally been leary of giving Presidents too much credit for these things. They can request a certain buget, and threaten to veto something they don’t like, but there are normally enough riders on “must-pass” bills to keep veto threats from seeming (to me) to be more than sabre-rattling. But, that “shutting the government down” was not business as usual. 🙂
Thomas wrote: Because 9/11 is a direct result of all those Clinton defense budget cuts which included the intelligence community and specifically human intelligence.
Clinton signed the budgets, but Congress passed them. I have a problem giving one person credit (or blame) for a “group effort”.
No John. I’m suggesting that without the dotcom boom, we’d have been languishing in mediocre economic returns for the past 16 years instead of just the past four.
I’m supposed to feel prosperous if government collects more than it “needs”? Get real.
The dotcom boom was the single greatest contributor to the economic boom of the 1990s. It is the source for a significant chunk of the increased tax revenues, expansion in businesses, improved productivity etc. Mr. Lefty Anonymous has a link somewhere that analyzes Clintons economic policy and has the specifics.
> My hunch is that Team Clintons successes came from sound macro-economic policy
Really? Does that sound macro-economic policy include those defense budget decreases? How sound do they look in retrospect?
RE: Budgets and Credit
You cant have it both ways. If we cannot credit the Clinton administration for the budgets of 1990s then we also cant credit the Clinton administration for the economic boom or his sound macro-economic policies either. The fact is that the President drafts the budgets and uses his political influence to get it passed.
Although oil is currently the driving force in our economy, that has generally not been true in the past 20 years. After Carter, oil prices have been fairly predictable because there havent been any major disasters in the world with the exception of the Gulf War and the current Iraq War.
> Anyone who thinks Team Clinton is somehow responsible for 9/11
> needs to read the Commissions Report.
Yes, perhaps you should read that too.
You couldn’t just post the link? ;->
> Your economic policies have played a significant role in
> driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals
> you have suggested for a potential second term from
> diverting Social Security contributions into private
> accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent only
> promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the
> federal revenue base.
Bullshit! Since when is the government entitled to use of my retirement money to solve their budget problems? Requiring that people have a retirement account was a good idea. Having the government responsible for managing that account was an atrocious idea. Republicans nor Democrats have been able to resist the temptations of using Social Security to solve budget problems and now we have a crisis. Social Security is a perfect example of a good idea and terrible implementation.
Furthermore, their idea that the tax cut *only benefited the rich* is more bullshit. 80% of the total tax revenue is paid by the upper 50% of the people. It is *impossible* to have a tax cut that has any impact that doesnt benefit the rich. Secondly, in the upper 1% income bracket pay almost 30% of the tax revenue as it is.
In closing, let me add that what they are suggesting, deficit reduction, is not on *either* candidates radar. It is true Kerry wants to rollback the tax cut. However, he has no intention of using that to pay down the deficit.
Thomas-
Thank you so much for explaining things for me. So let me see if I got this straight…
Team Clinton had more revenue and less spending resulting in an economic boom. Team Bush radically reduced revenue while wantonly increasing spending resulting in an economic bust. Okay, yea, in a simplistic way that sounds about right.
Team Kerry states that their plan won’t be able to restore the surplus. Therefore Team Kerry won’t be able to pay down the debt. Bastards!
While it cheers me to hear a conservative advocate more spending, which would have certainly fixed everything. Alas, the general acceptance is that pre-9/11 post-Clinton intelligence failures were due to organizational problems, misguided priorities, and neglect. Happily, there are some problems that money can help solve. Every one but Team Bush agrees that we should spend a lot more on human intelligence, counter-terrorism, and homeland security. Cutting the subsidies to Halliburton and Bechtel should just about cover the bill.
Team Clinton modernized the military, reduced spending (e.g. closing bases, reducing headcount), and tried to eliminate bogus weapons systems (e.g. missile defense, Crusader). Until the war profiteers bitch slapped him, Rumsfield was initially hellbent on finishing the work. The modernized military did remarkably well in Afghanistan and Iraq during the aggressive phases. For instance, improved precision bombing largely left the Iraqi civilian infrastructure intact. (Only to be quickly destroyed by the looting.) Alas, Team Bush failed to appreciate the necessity of peace keeping forces, a role which everyone agrees is stretching our military very thin, even before Afghanistan and Iraq.
The effective tax rate on the rich is much less than on the middle class and poor, creating inequity and an unfair burden on the non-rich.
See? We agree more than we disagree. I’m not quite clear on why you’re so rapidly partisan.
PS- John Dvorak’s suggestion that Team Clinton were the Republicans in all but name is spot-on.
All I can add to the many good responses here is that the much lauded budget “surplus” under the Clinton administration and cited again here was fictitious, or more accurately, A LIE. It was based on meaningless figures like “projected” windfalls from tobacco lawsuits and other non-existant nonsense. This was a nice try though. Most attacks on the President are ridiculous on their face, at least one had the appearence of substance, if not actual substance.
< Team Clinton had more revenue and less spending resulting
<snip>
Bullshit. Kerry has no plan whatsoever for paying down the deficit or even balancing the budget. So, Kerry will have to deal with stagnating revenue and higher spending. Sounds like a true Democrat to me.
< While it cheers me to hear a conservative advocate more
< spending, which would have certainly fixed everything.
< Alas, the general acceptance is that pre-9/11 post-Clinton
< intelligence failures were due to organizational problems,
< misguided priorities, and neglect.
Thats a half truth. Most people accept that one> factor was the intelligence agencies organizational problems, misguided priorities and neglect. However, clearly, another significant contributing factor was Clintons defense budgets.
< Cutting the subsidies to Halliburton and Bechtel should
< just about cover the bill.
Right.and who are you planning to use to in Iraq to help rebuild: the PTA?
< Team Clinton modernized the military, reduced spending
< (e.g. closing bases, reducing headcount)
Heres a quiz: name one president in the past 100 years that *didnt* modernize the military. AFAIK, there isn’t one. Every president has put money into modernizing the military. It is accurate to say that Clinton shrank the military while trying to make it more effective. Clinton, Bush I and Bush II all worked to close military bases. However, actually closing bases is a sticky issue because no one wants a based closed in their state.
Reducing headcount is however a problem. While it is true that military has shrunk over the past 20 years, the need for personnel is high because of the Iraq war. It will be interesting to see how the next president (Kerry or Bush) actually handles this situation. What either candidate is saying at the moment is completely irrelevant. Ill wait to see what is actually done.
< The effective tax rate on the rich is much less than on the
< middle class and poor, creating inequity and an unfair
< burden on the non-rich.
Define middle-class and rich please. Using 1999 figures, people making $26K and more pay for 96% of the tax revenue. I fail to understand how a tax cut on the poor will have any impact on the economy. How does paying half your income because of the spawn of satan Alternative Minimum Tax translate to “fair?”
< See? We agree more than we disagree. Im not quite clear on
< why youre so rapidly partisan.
We do. I never said that we didnt, especially as Ive never met you. I could, of course, ask the same question. My so called partisan opinion is actually quite straight forward. I believe in the market system and that government managed systems are inherently inefficient and thus more costly. I believe that the bigger the government the more corrupt. However, all my ideals are most definitely not met in either party. So I, like all of us, have to pick the lesser of two evils.
> PS- John Dvoraks suggestion that Team Clinton were the
> Republicans in all but name is spot-on.
Without a doubt, Clinton was far more moderate than his party and Kerry, but to call Clinton a Republican is a serious stretch. Just because he wasnt a flaming liberal does not suddenly make him a conservative.
Thomas,
Thanks for some good reading.
A snippet from the section of 9/11 Commission report you quoted:
Apart from the Gingrich supplemental of $1.5 billion for overall intelligence programs in fiscal year 1999, the key decisions on overall allocation of resources for national security issues in the decade before 9/11-including counterterrorism funding-were made in the presidents Office of Management and Budget.
Interesting how much credit/blame is placed on a President (by name) or Congress – when the “power behind the throne” appears to be the President’s OMB.
Republicans nor Democrats have been able to resist the temptations of using Social Security to solve budget problems and now we have a crisis. Social Security is a perfect example of a good idea and terrible implementation.
Agreed. But the private accounts, which were much-touted during the previous election, only seemed plausible while the market was on such an upward streak. How attractive are private accounts, with the current market stagnation? Are private accounts attractive because, at least that way, some of our money will be safe from the “poachers” (my term) in government.
Furthermore, their idea that the tax cut *only benefited the rich* is more bullshit. 80% of the total tax revenue is paid by the upper 50% of the people. It is *impossible* to have a tax cut that has any impact that doesnt benefit the rich. Secondly, in the upper 1% income bracket pay almost 30% of the tax revenue as it is.
A progessive tax system will do that – especially if the income of that top 1% is “astronomical” (my term), compared to the other 99%.
Looking at IRS Publication 17, the 2003 tax changes:
Expanded the 10% bracket
Expanded the 15% bracket
27% lowered to 25% – 2% drop
30% dropped to 28% – 2% drop
35% dropped to 33% – 2% drop
38.6% dropped to 35% – 3.6% drop
The “rich” got an additional 1.6% drop – compared to the “middle class (?)” brackets – which doesn’t seem like much, until I remember that it is 1.6% of “astronomical” (for the top 1%), not 1.6% of what I make. 🙂 Isn’t this the main reason a “flat” tax won’t work – the drop in tax revenue by lowering the top-end rates cannot be offset by raising the lower-end rates – unless we also close all the loopholes people use to shelter their money from the existing rates?
I like the fact that those at the bottom of the old 15%-bracket got a 5% drop when the 10%-bracket expanded, but the people already in the 10%-bracket got no cuts – nor did the people who stayed in the 15%-bracket.
I like the fact that people at the bottom of the old 27%-bracket got a 12% drop when the 15%-bracket expanded, but the people who stayed in the 27%-bracket only got a 2% drop – to 25%.
Most people got something good out of the cuts, but the cuts sure seem capricious, at best. 🙁
Off topic:
Researching my comments reminded me of how “arbitrary” the whole process seems. In particular the “steps” – which are uneven.
Rise above poverty level – and start with a 10% tax.
The next bracket is +5%
Then +10%
Then +3%
Then +5%
Then +2%
It is neither a smooth curve, nor a straight line – why not? What seemingly-arcane rational is behind these numbers?
Back on Topic:
How does paying half your income because of the spawn of satan Alternative Minimum Tax translate to fair?
Surely, you exagerate! (And no, I won’t stop calling you Shirley). 🙂
Reading IRS publication 6251, and looking at the worksheet line 64:
If Line 36 is less than $175,000 ($87,500 married filing separately) then multiply by 26%.
Otherwise, multiply line 36 by 28% and subtract $3,500 ($1,750 if married filing separately).
It may be the Spawn of Satan, but it is not taking 1/2 of one’s income – more like 1/4. 🙂
RE: AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax)
1. You are overlooking the fact that you lose almost all of your deductions under AMT. Thus you are taxed on a higher amount.
2. You do realize that you do not need to be making $175K for AMT to kick in.
3. Since the AMT exemption is not indexed for inflation, as each year goes by more people will fall victim to the AMT. In 2000, it was estimated that 1.3 million people paid AMT tax. Estimates are for that number to increase 10 fold by 2010.
RE: Paying 1/2 income
You arent account for state taxes. In CA, you are taxed at 11%. So, take the highest current bracket of 35% and add 11% for state tax and you get 46%. Of course, this doesnt include any other cute additions like an additional 7.5% to Social Security if you are self-employed or local taxes. Thus, the rich are supposed to be paying half of their income to tax. If you account for Kerrys rollback plan, theyll be paying 49.6%. How is that fair?
Hi Thomas,
Not sure anyone is still checking the archives – I almost forgot about this – but here goes:
1. You are overlooking the fact that you lose almost all of your deductions under AMT. Thus you are taxed on a higher amount.
No, I assumed that was why it is called an alternative minumum tax. I thought the original idea – probably different from what actually was written into law – was to prevent people from using legal loop-holes to avoid paying at least as much as “middle-class” (about 27%) tax rate.
2. You do realize that you do not need to be making $175K for AMT to kick in.
Yes, I noticed the IRS instructions on the form say “If line 36 is less than $175,000 then multiply by 26%.”
3. Since the AMT exemption is not indexed for inflation, as each year goes by more people will fall victim to the AMT.
Yeah, I’ve started having to check if I fall under it – but since I’m only writing-off mortgage interest and state tax, it hasn’t applied to me. But, I agree it is something they need to fix.
You arent account for state taxes. In CA, you are taxed at 11%. So, take the highest current bracket of 35% and add 11% for state tax and you get 46%. Of course, this doesnt include any other cute additions like an additional 7.5% to Social Security if you are self-employed or local taxes.
True, I thought we were discussing taxes at the Federal level – not in total.
I don’t see why you are using the 35% bracket for your example calculations. If I was paying the 35% rate, I would be paying more in taxes than the AMT’s 26% or (28% minus 3,500 rate) – so the AMT wouldn’t apply. It is only if I was in the 35% bracket, and had deductions dropping me to significantly below the 26%/28% level that I would be impacted by the AMT.
Realy? That’s 75601 crazy!!