Hey, what's up? Where are the trolls, their lips dripping in Bush-semen? Where's Al? egbert? Fresh from kissing the Bush-tool, here to call us who know this "war" for the lie it is "defeatocrats" or whatever?

Why would a person continue to defend Bush and Rove and their cynical attempts to convert our American foreign policy into a Democrat-bashing tool?

Why would any person continue to defend Bush?

No, no, no! The surge is a success when the violence goes down, and the surge is a success when the violence goes up, because it shows they are getting desperate. The surge is a success when there are reconcilliation talks, and it is a success when those talks break down, because, well, stuff happens. Just like it was a success when al-Maliki's sectarian government came to power, it will be a success when the CIA engineers his ouster by coup. You see freedom is on the march. And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Pure unadulterated bull shit is what it being shoveled out by these people.

"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille

I think that's Friedrich von Schiller, ain't it? Still more than apt, though.

The propaganda just never stops.

Why would Iraqis try to intensify attacks to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?

What do Iraqi militias have to do with 9/11 and why would that date have any meaning for them?

What the hell is the matter with this country?

Apparently, violence is down from its peak earlier this year, but since that's the normal seasonal pattern it's hard to say how meaningful it is. In any case, it's obvious that even the Pentagon isn't putting any stock in these figures.

Nonsense Kevin. We know the Pentagon considers those figures important because they gave Michael O'Hanlon secret data which indicates the Surge has caused a substantial decline in violence in Iraq.

Link

"Iraqi civilian fatality rates are down. The U.S. military has reported throughout much of 2007 that extrajudicial killings -- largely revenge murders by Shiite militias against Sunnis -- were down substantially since January. During our trip, the Pentagon showed us data illustrating that overall death tallies from all forms of sectarian violence were down about one-third from last winter's average."

The overall death toll is down from its peak, but is still about double the rate from last summer.

That's an incomplete appraisal. Parse carefully:

This year’s U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings — the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

• We're killing more people in Baghdad (bad guys?): those "war-related killing"
• While the rest of the country goes to hell: the "death toll from sectarian attacks"

Right on cure, Al. Still waiting for your cookie?

Does ANYBODY believe what the military says anymore?

Does ANYBODY believe what the military says anymore?

Whether they believe it or not, in any objective sense, the corporate press/media will publish and broadcast whatever the military says as if it were the revealed truth of the Lord God.

Anything less than an enthusiastic endorsement of the Pentagon's propaganda would be a betrayal of Our Brave Troops.

Why would Iraqis be voting with their feet if there were any real reduction in violence? But then who cares about the Iraqis-they are invisible to us.

Our beloved Bush Administration being allowed, as usual, to have it BOTH WAYS!!! Anyone worried yet?
What will it take, I wonder.....

As noted here, Osama bin Laden is thrilled that the ignorant moron Bush invaded a Muslim country instead of tracking down the original al-Qaeda, thereby making al-Qaeda into a worldwide franchise and bankrupting the United States in an unwinnable occupation.

Heckuva job, Georgie!!!

When are the Democrats going to force Bush to raise taxes to pay for this godawful war? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to go on national prime-time TV and say that Congress is not going to borrow one more penny from China to finance this war. If Bush wants to continue the occupation of Iraq, he is going to go in front of the American taxpayer and tell them he is going to need to raise taxes to pay for it. It would be over very quickly indeed, if the Dems would force this issue. Find some fuckin' balls, Democrats!!!

The Conservative Deflator: When are the Democrats going to force Bush to raise taxes to pay for this godawful war?

In fact, Bush has increased the amount of tax dollars collected by cutting tax rates. As a result, the deficit has fallen faster than even Bush predicted. This week Forbes reported

In a summer update released today, CBO said it expects a 158 bln usd deficit for the current budget year, down from its March prediction of 177 bln usd. CBO said the reduced deficit is due to higher-than-expected revenues from individuals...

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/08/23/afx4048520.html

POed Lib, I'm not debating the success of the surge, because I just don't know. Those who assert that it's working offer as proof that al Qaeda in Iraq is being soundly defeated. Unfortunately, none of the statistics available can confirm or rufute that allegation.

I am struck that most of the military and the reporters who have been in Iraq for a long time seem to think the surge is doing good things, including reporters for the anti-war New York Times.

As a result, the deficit has fallen faster than even Bush predicted.

Are you still falling for this? Or simply continuing your dishonesty? Here's the recipe: Bush overinflates the deficit prediction - then barely clears it with the final numbers...voila deficit "reduction"

I am struck that most of the military and the reporters who have been in Iraq for a long time seem to think the surge is doing good things,

Like who? Rather vague even for you ex-lib. I guess you're discounting those NCOs that wrote the Op-Ed last week? ANd no one is reporting political progress - you know, the real goal of the "surge"

kenji,

Perhaps he did mean von Shille - Used to be part of a drei card monte scam in Hamburg.

Well, I guess Elaine Cho will write the Petrateus Report - She is used to seasonally adjusted reports and toeing the company line.

"POed Lib, I'm not debating the success of the surge, because I just don't know."

That's because you refuse to look at the data, dear, and the data quite clearly indicate that it is not.

"Those who assert that it's working offer as proof that al Qaeda in Iraq is being soundly defeated"

LOL.... Dear heart, as Kevin has already noted, the successes in Anbar province have nothing to do with "the Surge" and are quite likely to prolong and intensify the ongoing civil war. When it comes to Iraq, al Qaeda is little more than a blip on the radar.

"I am struck that most of the military and the reporters who have been in Iraq for a long time seem to think the surge is doing good things, including reporters for the anti-war New York Times."

Dear heart, not only is The New York Times not "anti-war," but I note that you are unable to provide any data to back up this assertion, any more than you can your other dishonest assertions. I will also note that the verifiable data we have clearly show the opposite.

In short, and as usual, you got nothing. Nice try, though.

"Are you still falling for this? Or simply continuing your dishonesty? Here's the recipe: Bush overinflates the deficit prediction - then barely clears it with the final numbers...voila deficit 'reduction'"

This is the CBO, not Bush's usual dishonesty. What faux-liberal carefully didn't quote from this article, though, was the following:

"Despite this short-term improvement, CBO projected a 343 bln usd deficit over a 10-year period from 2008 to 2017. In March, CBO had projected a 586 bln usd surplus over that period."

"CBO Director Peter Orszag said the new long-term deficit forecast reflects the fact that the US is on an 'unsustainable fiscal path.'"

this is a thread about iraq, but ex-liberal's notion that bush has increased tax revenues by cutting taxes is as stupid as his notion's about iraq (and indeed about everything else). if ex-liberal would bother to acquaint himself with reality, he would see that tax revenues have consistently been below the level that the bush administration predicted at the time of the various tax cuts. they play with the numbers by overestimating the deficit, and, of course, they are stealing the social security surplus anyhow, so the numbers they issue are meaningless (although sufficient to fool maroooooooooooooons like ex-liberal).

As a result, the deficit has fallen faster than even Bush predicted.

Translation for the obtuse: The debt still grows larger, meaning that we are still owe the Chinese and Japanese even nore than last year. We still have to borrow more to pay for this incompetance and foolishness.

Apparently when it is 130 freaking degrees outside, even terrorists want to stay indoors. As it cools off, they'll be back.

Hey, maybe Republicans will finally embrace global warming as an anti-terrorist measure. ;)

The one statistic the military -- and us -- should care about is how many people are uprooting themselves to flee violence. If the US were smart, they would spend their military power on protecting Iraqi civilians -- not fighting insurgents, not anything else. It's the civilians that matter in a war on terror. They're the people the terrorists are trying to kill, not our "system," not "freedom," not anything else.

"Unfortunately, none of the statistics available can confirm or rufute that allegation."

We really don't give a flying fuck if the surge is working, you bonehead. It is simply obvious that it is not. Have you noted that the Iraqi government is now defunct? That's what the surge was all about, right? Fixing the politics to fix the terrorists?

The surge has failed.

The Middle East will never get over how insensitive the U.S. was to their culture,
and how Iraq--the cradle of civilization--was destroyed.
Bombed back to the stone age.

Oh, and O'Hanlon credits the U.S. for finding people to pay to clean up. That's progress?

Boy George wanted to be the war president. From now on all we will hear is propagandized imperatives, strategy and ideology as he seeks to continue his doomed initiatives.
(As we have heard all along.)

"Experts on the ground" who disagree with his fixed delusional ideation will be marginalized,
and the spin will continue.

POedLib makes a salient point that has to be part of any discussion about the surge: The entire logic of the operation was to cap the violence in Baghdad and environs for a few months to allow the government to come together, smooth over sectarian divides and pass some critical legislation. None of that happened, so simply pointing out that the surge has managed to reduce certain kinds of violence in certain neighborhoods for a brief period is completely irrelevant. Without the political accord to go along with it, it was a moot exercise to begin with. End of story. Now get those guys out of there and bring 'em home.

Since we drifted off and entered the world of a reduced deficit, perhaps those who think Bush's tax cuts for the rich had anything to do with this should read all the numbers. Tax revenues are not up because corporations are putting more into the national kitty and there hasn't been a significant increase in capital gains revenues. The majority of the increased revenue is coming from increased payroll taxes as hourly employees are working more hours to make ends meet and hopefully catch upon debts. Once again the middle class workers are funding the government and slowing the imending disaster resulting from Bushco's ill advised tax policy, but hey, the top brackets are doing real good.

that's the normal seasonal pattern

Not so. the normal seasonal pattern has been for violence to peak in the summer, to the degree that a "normal seasonal pattern" can be established for a four-year timespan.

MatthewRmarler: "the normal seasonal pattern has been for violence to peak in the summer, to the degree that a "normal seasonal pattern" can be established for a four-year timespan."

Excellent. I'm looking forward to seeing your supporting data.

Why would any person continue to defend Bush?

The point isn't to defend Bush but to get an honest appraisal of a complex situation. The surge has had the effect (among others) of driving a few thousand al Qaeda in Iraq out of Baghdad, then out of some other cities, and of attacking them wherever they relocate next. Everywhere the attacks have moved to, the American and IA forces have received substantial support from the local Iraqis. The surge has also attacked the Mahdi Army, and has received support from locals even in Mahdi Army home ranges.

The alternatives in September will be to give up right away, to give up slowly, or to persist in the campaign of ambiguous successes. As was said in the summer of 1968, "The whole world's watching."

Ah, Kevin.

YOu can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously try to suggest that fatalities have not decreased now and then preemptively insist the fatalities will not go down in the fall.

No one knows wht will happen in the fall. Anything could happen. But the surge can only have one effect: it will continue to force the fatalities down, so that the conditions for markets and liberty will build and spread.

It's a messy process, but it's better than what was there before. There's no arguing that.

MatthewRmarler: "The point isn't to defend Bush but to get an honest appraisal of a complex situation."

This is laughable. The point at every step along the way during the insurgency has been to downplay or completely ignore any honest appraisals that run counter to the administration's meme of "progress," while cherry picking and even manufacturing "successes" in order to perpetuate these dubious (at best) assertions of progress. The recent O'Hanlon op-ed is only the most recent, and one of the more egregious, examples of this.

Speaking of cherry picking & manufacturing successes, where's your evidence that "the normal seasonal pattern has been for violence to peak in the summer"?

Interesting alternative metric for progress in Iraq: New Glass

Road trip from Camp Ramadi to Camp Falluja. Again. But this trip is different....

Today the boulevard is wide open and people are walking the streets. Women in abayah's, men in dishdasha, soccer attire, and a few in suits talking on their cell phones. Some people ignore our small convoy, some look suspiciously, and some wave.

There at the first corner, I see it. New glass. Someone has put new glass in a shop. Someone only installs new glass when they think it won't get broken. New glass is confidence.

http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-glass.html

Speaking of Ramadan, it starts this year the same day as Rosh Hashanah; I would advise against trips to the West Bank or Gaza.

ex-liberal: "Interesting alternative metric for progress in Iraq: New Glass"

That's not a metric. That's an anecdote. And it's not reflective of what's going on in the rest of the country, if the actual evidence O'Hanlon provides is to be believed. (For this, see Kevin's 5:43 p.m. post on August 23.) But this is what the administration's supporters are left with you -- feel-good narratives that bear little or no relevance to the actual data & larger trends that completely undercut their position.

In fact, Bush has increased the amount of tax dollars collected by cutting tax rates..... most of the military and the reporters who have been in Iraq for a long time seem to think the surge is doing good things... ex-lax at 10:29 AM

Not so. the normal seasonal pattern has been for violence to peak in the summer...MatthewRmarler at 12:36 PM

...I see it. New glass... ex-laxat 1:11 PM

Why do they get credit for "violence is down from its peak" when it's always down from its earlier peak in July and August. It's too darn hot to fight in these months.

52: the number of times the term "reconciliation" was used in the Iraq Study Group's report.

0: the number of times "war on terror" was used.

The surge was supposed to buy time for Iraqis to reconcile.
Nothing's happening to this regard.

As comedian Ellen DeGeneres said... "Why not a woman President? Foreign relationships would be so much better because a woman president would keep calling back, saying "We need to talk."

Jokes aside, this administration has done little to influence reconciliation and peace.
As such, yet more troops and civilians die.

With the anniversary of the U.S. Katrina disaster upon us, it reminds us of the ongoing incompetence and the uncaring, self-serving ways of this mal-administration.

Bush lied, too many died--put impeachment back on the table.

Good political news from Iraq:

Iraq leaders reach consensus on some benchmarks
Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:44PM EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's top Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders reached consensus on some U.S. benchmarks on Sunday that are seen as crucial to healing the deep rifts in the country, Iraqi officials said.

Three Iraqi officials said the leaders had signed an agreement that would ease curbs on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party joining the civil service and military.

Two of the officials also said consensus had been reached on holding provincial elections and releasing many detainees held without charge across the country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2655280720070826?sp=true

Another source pointed out that Maliki was no longer depending on al Sadr for support, but instead was looking to work with Kurds and Sunnis. This Reuters article doesn't address whether or not al Sadr is a part of this agreement. I hope he isn't. The less power al Sadr wields, the better off Iraq is, in my opinion.

Good political news from Iraq:... ex-lax at 4:19 PM

...Maliki was no longer depending on al Sadr for support...The less power al Sadr wields, the better off Iraq is... ex-lax at 4:19 PM

SocraticGadfly: "I would advise against trips to the West Bank or Gaza."

Damn! And the Mrs. and I were so hoping to stop there later this autumn, on our way from Mogadishu to Groznyy in the Russian Caucacus. (Sigh!) Guess we'll have to settle for Thanksgiving in Nagorno-Karabakh ...

Three Iraqi officials said the leaders had signed an agreement that would ease curbs on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party joining the civil service and military.

BAGHDAD: A purported spokesman for Saddam Hussein's party Sunday dismissed draft legislation to ease the ban on party members from holding government jobs, saying his group would not deal with the Iraqi leadership until all U.S. and foreign forces leave the country.

Whoops! Looks like you get your choice of a surge or a re-integration of Baathists into society society, not both.

And I wonder how an "ease" on the curbs prohibiting Baathists from receiving civil service jobs might be different from receiving the same rights as all other Iraqis? And if you were a Baathist receiving limited rights or held back by quotas, I wonder how you'd feel about that?

[IP check reveals banned commenter]

Mike: "So the Mahdi Army is on the run?"

So what if it is?

Iraq is currently in such a state of disarray that conditions will quickly warrant yet another clarion call for resistance to the occupation by yet another shadowy, malevolent organization.

And so it will go, again and again, until circumstances compel us to realize that the Iraq War has been hopelessly botched by this president, and has now escalated far beyond our military's rapidly deteriorating ability to salvage the present situation on this president's criminally unrealistic terms.

trex: " A purported spokesman for Saddam Hussein's party Sunday dismissed draft legislation to ease the ban on party members from holding government jobs, saying his group would not deal with the Iraqi leadership until all U.S. and foreign forces leave the country."

Assuming that the masked spokesman is actually a Baath Party official, I'm not surprised. I expect some Baath Party leaders to fight to the death. Nevertheless, the announced agreement will make it easier for Sunnis to support the government, rather than fight to undermine it.

And I wonder how an "ease" on the curbs prohibiting Baathists from receiving civil service jobs might be different from receiving the same rights as all other Iraqis? And if you were a Baathist receiving limited rights or held back by quotas, I wonder how you'd feel about that?

If I were a Baathist receiving less rights than others, I would nevertheless try to make peace with the government, rather than continue an armed battle that was almost sure to lead to my death. However, I don't think like a Baathist extremist, so my hypothetical conduct doesn't predict theirs. One must hope that many insurgents would rather have a less than satisfactory place within the new Iraq government, rather than fighting until they're killed.

As I was traveling today, I didn't have an opportunity to respond to ex-liberal's earlier idiotic assertion that cutting tax rates has resulted in more tax revenues. If this were true, why not cut marginal tax rates to zero, then we would have infinite tax revenues, using your (ahem) logic. Do you people really believe this bullshit or are you so unwilling to admit that your political party is so well and truly fucked up that you will spew any cockamamie theory to bolster them???

No, Democrats need to force Bush to admit he is stealing from our children to finance the occupation of Iraq and make him raise marginal tax rates to continue it. Then, watch his approval rates plummet into the single digits where they belong.

The Conservative Deflator: I didn't have an opportunity to respond to ex-liberal's earlier idiotic assertion that cutting tax rates has resulted in more tax revenues. If this were true, why not cut marginal tax rates to zero, then we would have infinite tax revenues, using your (ahem) logic.

I didn't say all tax rate cuts would increase tax revenues; I said Bush's rate cuts had done so. We have reason to believe this is true because tax revenue soared after Bush's rate cuts. Here's a quick explanation of the Laffer curve.

As you say, with tax rates of zero, no tax would be collected. Also, with tax rates of 100%, no tax would be collected. Nobody will work if they cannot keep any part of their income.

Visualize a curve f(x) on a graph where the x-axis is the average tax rate and the y-axis is the dollars of tax collected. The function f(x) represents the tax dollars collected as a function of average tax rate x. The tax collected is zero when the rate is zero. The tax collected also is zero when the rate is 100%. That is, f(0)=0 and f(100%)=0. Of course, f(x) is the Laffer curve.

It follows that the tax collected increases as the tax rate increases within a certain range, but decreases as tax rate increases within another range. That is, there is some average tax rate A such that f(x) is an increasing function of x for x less than A and f(x) is a decreasing function for x greater than A.

If the average tax rate is less than A, then a reduction in average tax rate will reduce tax revenue. If the average tax rate is greater than A, then a reduction in the average tax rate will increase the tax collected (as long as the reduction doesn't bring the rate down below A.)

P.S. the curve f(x) is a convex curve. increasing the tax rate by a certain percentage never increases tax collected by as large a percentage.

MatthewRmarler: Not so. the normal seasonal pattern has been for violence to peak in the summer, to the degree that a "normal seasonal pattern" can be established for a four-year timespan.

Based on Iraq Body Count data:

• 2004 peaks were Apr (1168) & Nov (1411).
• 2005 peaks were Feb (1162) & Aug (2067).
• 2006 peaks were Jul (2968) & Nov (2854).

Mike: The death toll by month doesn't bear that out.

Those are Iraq coalition casualties, not civilian casualties.

fox-liberal is a moron. There is simply no evidence that a single one of the proponents of the laughter curve have any idea where the peak tax rate is. Go ahead, ask any one of these idiots where the peak collection rate is - they don't know.

As with all proponents of this clownish proposal fox-liberal gives us only two data points - 0% and 100% and he gets one of them wrong - at 100% collection there would still be revenue collected. Given this cretinous score of 50% wrong answers on a test he has given himself the rest of his bloviation can be ignored.

heavy, can you please explain why there would be tax revenue collected if we were unable to keep any part of what we earned? Why would people work if every penny they earned had to be paid to the government? How could businesses operate if they could keep nothing at all of their earnings?

I agree that there's no way to say hypothetically where the peak tax rate is. However, since tax revenue soared after Bush's rate cuts, we can deduce that taxes had been above the peak rate. Similarly, tax revenue soared after the rate cuts from JFK and Reagan.

ex-liberal, i have no doubt that you copied that moronic "explanation" of the laffer curve from somewhere else; regardless, it doesn't begin to explain anything.

for tax revenues to go up with lower tax rates, there are two possible explanations: a.) the economy grew; b.) cap gains.

the question is whether the tax cut caused either of those. if, in fact, tax cuts automatically caused the economy to grow, then yes, we should drive taxes all the way down to .0000000000000001% or so, because that should make the economy skyrocket.

of course, that's nonsensical, and in the real world, there is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts as such produce sufficient long-term growth that they justify the claims made by maroooons like you.

and, in fact, the upshot of bush's tax cuts is that personal income tax revenues have falled to post-world war ii lows; what's been carrying the revenue side is "b," the cap gains taxes.

that, of course, is a function of two things: a.) a greater propensity to sell long-term holdings if cap gain taxes are lower (which produces a short-term surge in revenues, but which, in the long term, does nothing); b.) a happy stock market. wait until you see what happens to this year's cap gains revenues, bub (they'll fall, just like they did after the nasdaq collapse).

there actually isn't a single reputable economist who would argue that tax caughts "cause" higher revenues; honest conservative economists prefer a smaller government role in the economy, but they don't play pretend games about the miracle of tax cuts.

as for marler, he is evidently as well-informed about seasonal variations in iraq deaths as ex-liberal is about tax rates.

ex-liberal, just to continue on the hopeless task of trying to educate you: if tax revenues "soared" after the bush tax cuts, why is it they never met the projections the bush administration provided at the time of the tax cuts?

clearly, you don't know what the word "soared" means.

howard, here's what happened to federal tax revenue after Bush's tax rate cuts. The Congressional Budget Office reported that:

Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006....The bulk of the revenue increase was associated
with corporate income taxes

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

you know, ex-liberal, i considered making a specific point about the corporate taxes, but i decided that any intelligent reader would recognize that was covered by "the economy grew."

so you failed the test of intelligent readership - imagine that!

next you're going to tell me that corporate profit growth was "caused" by the tax cuts....

Look moron, do you think every single person would fail to report any income at all? That's simply not credible. Imagine a government that set such a rate - does it make sense that they would also believe that not a single person was collecting any income? Even if they were collected by force there would still be taxes collected - collections would not be zero. Twit.

The basis of your curve is that you are an idiot. Those who gave you that talking point are idiots. Anyone who repeats your moronic talking point is an idiot.

The rest of your idiocy can be dismissed because you have assumed a cause and effect relationship and have no way to demonstrate that your cause is the only one that produced this effect. Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't a way to prove your point - it is a fallacy. If you weren't a complete moron you might have known that already.

ex-liberal: One must hope that many insurgents would rather have a less than satisfactory place within the new Iraq government, rather than fighting until they're killed.

That is fuzzy-headed wishful thinking of the worst sort. Virtually every revolution and insurgency since the dawn of time is based on people's willingness to fight and die rather than accept a "less than satisfactory place".

ex-liberal:

This blog does a nice job of showing how utterly bogus the “Laffer curve� is. Now, to refute your pedantic recitation – Would you use integral or differential calculus to determine the slope of the curve? Why? If you can’t answer, don’t bother me with pseudo-science like so many conservatives toss around, that purports to show something that it doesn’t. Go away.

TCD

It's also no surprise that "ex-liberal" completely omits the succession of historically low interest rates in his analysis, because "ex-liberal" gets off on posting the most transparently bogus right-wing talking points he can think of. He isn't here to debate -- howard, everyhting you mention and more has been explained to "ex-liberal," patiently, already; he simply ignores it an continues to insult Kevin and his regulars with his bad faith posting. Why Kevin's moderator(s) tolerate "ex-liberal"'s pissing on the floor in here is a mystery.

Speaking of bad faith, Marler claiming it isn't about defending Bush but finding the truth is the best and bitterest laugh I've had all day.

howard: you know, ex-liberal, i considered making a specific point about the corporate taxes, but i decided that any intelligent reader would recognize that was covered by "the economy grew."

Exactly. The point of the Laffer curve is that high tax rates were holding the economy back. The reduction in tax rates caused the economy to grow, which led to a 35% increase in tax revenues despite the lower rates.

The Conservative Deflator: I agree with you about that WSJ application. It was an inappropriate stretching of the Laffer curve, in my opinion. The Laffer curve involves the impact of tax rate changes on a single economy. It was not meant as a tool for comparing different economies.

heavy, I take your point. However, when I hypothosize a 100% tax rate, that assumes no evasion. It's an unreal assumption, anyhow. No government would have a 100% tax rate.

Even granting your point that at 100% tax rate the tax collected would be small, rather than zero, the argument is the same. There is some tax rate such that raising the tax rates above that level will reduce tax revenue collected.

has407: Virtually every revolution and insurgency since the dawn of time is based on people's willingness to fight and die rather than accept a "less than satisfactory place".

This is true, but on the other hand, many disadvantaged groups have not revolted. E.g., in the US, there was no revolution by blacks, Asians, Irish, women, Catholics, Jews, gays, Hispanics, Italians, etc., all of whom were disadvantaged at one time.

No fox-liberal, then you are starting by discussing a fantasy world and then proceeding to ignore all of the real world effects and claim victory. This is the argument of a moron. In the real world the tax rates are but one component of the tax collections. Expected changes in tax rates (owing to dishonest "sunset" provisions for example), ease of credit, shifts in accounting practices all can and do change the tax collections and are not dependent on the absolute tax rates. That's not even an exhaustive list. Your argument has demonstrated no corrections for those effects.

Changing the assumption to allow for the fact that of your two data points one of them was wrong demonstrates clearly that you aren't smart enough to think through the talking points given to you.

You have proven nothing. You have demonstrated that you aren't interested in the real world but a fantasy concocted by anti-tax zealots. That's fine, but you should refrain from attempting to sell your idiotic fantasy to people who aren't as stupid as you are.

ex-liberal -- Iraq is not the US. Your suggestion of equivalence to the US--or to any state with established institutions and a history of achieving effective compromise and consensus across divergent interests--is, as I said, fuzzy-headed wishful thinking.

The Laffer curve...

No one even knows what the Laffer "curve" actually looks like, other than it is zero at 0% and 100% tax rates.

Insurgents will key on Sept 11th, while Gen Petraeus' report comes out when?

I'm just saying..

ELMO

Ex Liberal: sure the function of revenue with respect to tax rate can be plotted as a convex curve, we all understand that. What you seem not to understand is that the extremum of the curve (second derivative goes to zero) is way higher on the tax axis than the rates that Bush cut. The reason it worked for Kennedy is because the top rate was 91% and he lowered it to 70%. It's doubtful it really worked for Reagan at all since he had to follow his tax cuts with the biggest tax increase in history to undo the mistake.

Er.. first derivative

ex-liberal: "I didn't say all tax rate cuts would increase tax revenues; I said Bush's rate cuts had done so. We have reason to believe this is true because tax revenue soared after Bush's rate cuts. Here's a quick explanation of the Laffer curve."

I demand to see the cocktail napkin upon which it was sketched.

Never-ever, as to no revolts, this is not exactly true, as you hint. Some have. And been repressed. Aboriginal Americans led the charge and we annihilated them. Many disadvantaged groups have not revolted. 'cos we trained them not to. And no one minority group has the weight to succeed. Most revolutions require a certain overwhelming momentum.

Of course we have seen some very violent demonstrations/remonstrations and some violent government responses extending to killing citizens.

But that's all OK. Right?

From memory I recall the OBM gave GW's tax cut a 0.1% contribution to overall annual growth.

I bet they all got the big heave-ho since then.

Rats in the ship, no doubt.

How different is this guy from the Germany of 1939?

"I didn't say all tax rate cuts would increase tax revenues; I said Bush's rate cuts had done so."

No, nor will you find any reputable economist agreeing with this.

"We have reason to believe this is true because tax revenue soared after Bush's rate cuts."

Classic logical fallacy. The rest of your idiotic drivel isn't worth the trouble to refute. You know nothing of economics and it simply is not worth the trouble to try to educate someone so blindly partisan.

If I were a Baathist receiving less rights than others, I would nevertheless try to make peace with the government, rather than continue an armed battle that was almost sure to lead to my death

We know ex-lib. You've proven over and over again that you are more than willing to give up your rights (and ours) to ease your bed-wetting.
"Give me a Daddy, to hell with the Liberty!"

"It's doubtful it really worked for Reagan at all since he had to follow his tax cuts with the biggest tax increase in history to undo the mistake."

It isn't really doubtful, actually. "Voodoo economics," as the elder Bush called it, was an abysmal failure. It's even worse than you point out, since Reagan had to continue raising taxes, as did the elder Bush and Clinton. It took years and a lot of tax hikes to bring the budget back into balance.

"The surge has had the effect (among others) of driving a few thousand al Qaeda in Iraq out of Baghdad"

There is zero evidence to support this assertion. None. Moreover, it ignores the fact that the central threat in Iraq isn't al Qaeda, it's the civil war.

"then out of some other cities"

And no evidence to support this, either.

"Everywhere the attacks have moved to, the American and IA forces have received substantial support from the local Iraqis."

And no evidence to support this, either.

"The surge has also attacked the Mahdi Army"

Oh, garbage. They haven't really done a damned thing to the Mahdi Army, which is why it's still a central power in Baghdad and elsewhere.

"has received support from locals even in Mahdi Army home ranges."

And again, garbage.

"The alternatives in September will be to give up right away, to give up slowly, or to persist in the campaign of ambiguous successes."

This war is lost, Matthew; we can either recognize that fact now or we can recognize it when Bush leaves office. Either way, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. "The Surge" has been a failure, by its own metrics, with not one independently verifiable, unambiguous success, despite the money and troops we're throwing at the situation.

"As was said in the summer of 1968, 'The whole world's watching.'"

Yup, they're watching us lose and they're loving it.

Your response was both predictable and predicted, as we noted several times over the past few months. You needn't have bothered posting, since we already knew exactly what you would post.

Ex-Lib -- P.S. the curve f(x) is a convex curve. increasing the tax rate by a certain percentage never increases tax collected by as large a percentage.

Tax cuts do not lead to more tax revenues than there would have been without the cut.
Tax cuts do not pay for themselves; never have and never will. That's why tax cuts have a cost associated with them.

mp: Decreasing the tax rate by a certain percentage might not decrease tax collected by the same percentage, but it does decrease tax collected.
Tax cuts do not lead to more tax revenues than there would have been without the cut.
Tax cuts do not pay for themselves; never have and never will. That's why tax cuts have a cost associated with them.

This is always correct if one ignores the impact taxes on the economy, that is, a static analysis. It is also correct under many types of economic circumstances. However, both theory and experience have shown that under certain circumstances, reducing a high tax rate can improve the economy enough to produce an increase in tax revenue.

This is always correct if one ignores the impact taxes on the economy, that is, a static analysis.

I wasn't looking at a static analysis. The laffer curve is correct, but it never causes more revenue than there would have been without the cuts. It only causes less revenue loss than there would be in a static analysis. That is what experience has shown. Tax cuts have a COST.

"However, both theory and experience have shown that under certain circumstances, reducing a high tax rate can improve the economy enough to produce an increase in tax revenue."

Of course, since neither the theory nor the experience apply in the case of Bush's tax cuts, I'm afraid that once again, and as usual, you don't have a point.