This one chart destroys the myth

[Gunny]

it is not hiding your money..... unless you do so illegally. It is taking advantage of the tax laws put in place for citizens just like you to avail themselves of the benefits thereof.

Or have it otherwise confiscated by the government to fund the bureaucracy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The CBO is hardly Non Partisan.... check out how it is lead and staffed and then explain again about all this " Non partisan" crap.

http://ftp.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/organization/

And low and behold the Incoming Congress replaced the CBO staff, from the chart it would appear to be the first time since creation that a Director didn't finish his 4 year tour.

Even the Republicans didn't do that when they took over in the 90's.

 

[Truthmatters]

at the time of the study this guy was in charge,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crippen

 

[Truthmatters]

Dan Crippen (born March 18, 1952, in Canistota, South Dakota.) is a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and Assistant to the President for Ronald Reagan. Crippen most recently served on NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. He graduated from the University of South Dakota (B.S. 1974) and Ohio State University (M.A. 1976; Ph.D. 1981).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Doesn't mean a thing, the CBO is partisan and last I checked Presidents have NO say in who serves on the CBO, that remains completely totally the power of Congress.

And lets think for a moment, what Party controlled Congress until the 1994 1996 period? In fact the House was controlled almost exclusively by Democrats from 1952 until 1992. The Senate was controlled far longer during those 40 years by dems then repubs also.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Making sure kids get thir preventative shots and basic medical care save us a shitload.
Making sure poor kids have decent food to eat saves us tax dollars in the end.

Educating our kids correctly increases future tax revenue.

Making sure people are not living in substandard housing saves money in the end.

This is what us Liberals believe.

You can pretend we just want to steal you money but it isnt true my friend.

We have a plan ,Its not perfect NO plan is perfect.

Its just a good plan and will actually help peoople and save money in the long run.

Those are all very important things, which is precisely why government (and the federal government in particular) should have nothing to do with them.

 

[Psychoblues]

But, what about all the rest?

Those are all very important things, which is precisely why government (and the federal government in particular) should have nothing to do with them.

Do we have a chance in hell for salvation?

 

[Truthmatters]

Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 2/20/96: The deficit reduction in the President's 1993 Economic Plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter."

· Business Week, 5/19/97: "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."

· Goldman Sachs, March 1998: One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for "the best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."

· U.S. News & World Report, 6/17/96: "President Clinton's budget deficit program begun in 1993... [led] to lower interest rates, which begat greater investment growth (by double digits since 1993, the highest rate since the Kennedy administration), which begat three-plus years of solid economic growth averaging 2.6 percent annually, 50 percent higher than during the Bush presidency."

· Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Audacity, Fall 1994: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that... and I think we're seeing some benefits."

 

[loosecannon]

Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 2/20/96: The deficit reduction in the President's 1993 Economic Plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter."

· Business Week, 5/19/97: "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."

· Goldman Sachs, March 1998: One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for "the best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."

· U.S. News & World Report, 6/17/96: "President Clinton's budget deficit program begun in 1993... [led] to lower interest rates, which begat greater investment growth (by double digits since 1993, the highest rate since the Kennedy administration), which begat three-plus years of solid economic growth averaging 2.6 percent annually, 50 percent higher than during the Bush presidency."

· Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Audacity, Fall 1994: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that... and I think we're seeing some benefits."

That was much stronger supporting evidence than that chart composed of projected data not actual data.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope I dont think so.

You see some will stretch and pretend what the CBO is not unbiased, its biased bullshit.

The guy who presided over the CBO report was a reagan guy.

The CBO is nohn biased and this guy tried to say it was ONLY because he didtn like what they said.

The thing is its what the numbers tell us from the different bills.

Im really tired of this myth.

IT NEEDS TO COME FACE TO FACE WITH THE FACTS.

 

[Truthmatters]

The fact is the 1993 budget reduction act passed without one single Republican vote and signed by a democratic president was resonsible for the Best economy in modern history.

They will fight this fact with every fiber of their being because its the only issue the Rs still have the American public fooled with.

 

[Truthmatters]

Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 2/20/96: The deficit reduction in the President's 1993 Economic Plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter."

So is Alan Greenspan a non biased opinion?

is he a lefty?

 

[loosecannon]

Nope I dont think so.

You see some will stretch and pretend what the CBO is not unbiased, its biased bullshit.

The guy who presided over the CBO report was a reagan guy.

The CBO is nohn biased and this guy tried to say it was ONLY because he didtn like what they said.

The thing is its what the numbers tell us from the different bills.

Im really tired of this myth.

IT NEEDS TO COME FACE TO FACE WITH THE FACTS.

The reason why that chart was meaningless is because it didn't represent real results.

It contained no actual data.

It said in it's own text that the chart represented the "expected" results of those programs "before" they were implemented.

That chart is the equivelant of posting the predicted super bowl score before the game begins, not the actual score after the game is played.

It is not about bias.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/ytv4v2

 

[Truthmatters]

An Economic Analysis of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
April 2000
Section 9 of 10

This chart was made in 2000 they used the true yearly numbers that they rproduced

 

[loosecannon]

An Economic Analysis of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
April 2000
Section 9 of 10

This chart was made in 2000 they used the true yearly numbers that they rproduced

But this is what the chart itself actually says:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR FEDERAL TAX LEGISLATION PASSED BETWEEN 1981 AND 1997, AS ESTIMATED AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT (By fiscal year, as a percentage of projected gross national product at the time)

"Estimated at the time of enactment" means predictions before kickoff, not actual scores after the game ends.

 

[Truthmatters]

Gotcha!

I cant understand why they would use estimates of at the time if they proved to be off in a significant way?

I will go and search for actual the differances between the projections and the results.

What would be the use of this chart if these numbers proved to be sinificatly off projection?

I can think of any can you?

 

[loosecannon]

Gotcha!

I cant understand why they would use estimates of at the time if they proved to be off in a significant way?

I will go and search for actual the differances between the projections and the results.

What would be the use of this chart if these numbers proved to be sinificatly off projection?

I can think of any can you?

I can only think of three reasons.

One to be tricky and fool the guilible

Two because there was no data (yet) to prove results

Three because the point was not to contrast the results but the design of the bills.

I suspect that there simply IS NO such final data because it would be next to impossible to determine how the bills had impacted revenue.

I mean if I pass a bill that changes taxation nobody ever knows whether that bill was the cause of any change in revenue that may happen a year or two later.

Maybe a butterfly on the opposite side of the earth caused a revenue decrease/increase.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ive got part of the answer.

Its because the CBO used the numbers in the bills as written and then projects them out.

The actual number is the perview of the GAO I think?

Im about to go scour the GAO web site This may take awhile.

The CBO is NOT biased

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2vyrmf



Note the source of this chart?