The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

IUSB Vision makes the Daily KOS.

Posted by iusbvision on June 25, 2010

UPDATE – Be sure to examine the comments below, Wes tries to dig himself out of the rhetorical hole he has dug himself into and ends up just making the hole deeper.  What else would one expect from the KOS Kids? – Editor

HI all, I see that our far left commenter as of late is one of the KOS Kids. So for entertainment purposes I thought I would respond to what Wes posted at KOS, enjoy.

Hey Wes I see that you are one of the KOS Kids,

How nice of you to pluck snippets out of months worth of conversation, mostly out of context, and publish them (you didn’t go out of your way to post much of my sourced evidence did you…).

How nice of you not to tell them that after weeks and weeks of mischaracterizing my arguments, presenting arguments that you could not back up, and not putting a dent in the evidence presented that I started getting flippant with you because you had gone off into silly land with your comments.

In all seriousness; when you gratuitously play the race card and can’t even quote my own arguments back to me without radically changing them for your own convenience you cannot expect one to take you seriously.

After a while of being flippant I started rubbing how bad your arguments were in your face because the more facts I placed in front of you that went unrefuted the more out on a limb you got.

I enjoyed this in particular.

You wrote:

Arguing with this guy is a nightmare. He’s someone who spends a good portion of the debate insisting on how superior his knowledge is, and using idle minutia to connect imaginary dots, insisting that Bush improved the economy, that Democrats are responsible for the crash, that the left is racist and responsible for segregation, and just about every other thing that is way beyond the mainstream.

1 – The level of evidence and reasoning I bring is vastly superior to what you have brought. You have been able to introduce next to no verifiable evidence backing up most of your claims. In all seriousness if we were in Lincoln/Douglass style debate you would have no chance. I judged debates at the high school level and while I would not get cute with you in a real debate as I do here (largely for entertainment purposes) if verifiable and or sourced information was the standard you would have very little to stand on.

2 – Bush did help improve the economy, I presented economic reports, treasury reports and dozens of sourced elite media sources which make that crystal clear. All of which went unrefuted or even seriously challenged by you.

3 – While some Republicans like Mike Oxley and the Federal Reserve deserve some credit for the crash, it is factually undeniable that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely ran in a corrupt manner by mostly Democrat appointees. It is undeniable that they spent $200 million in partisan activities most of which went to Democrats. You cannot deny that that Bush and some Republicans tried repeatedly to get mortgage reform and Barney Frank fought it or years and Chris Dodd made sure reform was filibustered in the Senate over and over again.

4 – As far as the left being responsible for segregation – Hello – Woodrow Wilson. Dude seriously start reading some history.

Two more things…

You quote lecture people at Daily KOS about being “mainstream” – are you kidding. Daily KOS is not mainstream and is anything but.

And speaking of racism which you have accused me of at least twice when your bad arguments have failed you, would you like me to start listing the antisemitic comments that have appeared on DailyKOS? Hadassa and Joe Lieberman sure got the treatment from you guys didn’t they.

I find it amusing that the people you polled on your page mostly agreed with me. Perhaps they came here and saw that what you posted had several of my flippant comments towards you but not much of the substance I presented to you.

For weeks I asked you for some honest to goodness real refutation with some evidence I can verify, over and over that is what you steadfastly failed/refused to do.

5 Responses to “IUSB Vision makes the Daily KOS.”

  1. Paul Geer said

    Once again, just because left say, it is, it is. I see can what Vladimir Lenin meant by “useful idiots”.

  2. Wesley said

    I’m still trying to find out where I played any race card. This is a guy, I’ll remind you, insisting that when we had a problem with Rand Paul, itwasn’t that the philosophy of government never interfering in personal decisions had some holes in it, it was that we were all saying he’s racist. No, no one played the race card there either, especially Maddow was just saying that the ideology sounds nice but isn’t realistic.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    When you could not defeat my arguments you pulled the race card in your own comments published on this very web site. Who the heck do you think you are kidding?]

    (Think about it. Forcing people not to discriminate in their own stores amounts to ‘social engineering’, just like conservatives like to say we do.)

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    While the left does like to engage in social engineering, what you said here was not my argument AT ALL. What I said was that the interpretation by the courts of that section of the bill turned into a quota system which the people who supported the bill were vocally and expressly against.

    I never said that the government was forcing people not to discriminate in their own stores, what I said (and it was crystal clear) that it was government with their Jim Crow laws passed by Democrats that forced private businesses to segregate when they did not wish to.

    I also said that Paul makes a case that this section of the bill expanded the commerce power in a slippery slope to areas that had nothing to do with race. Who would deny that today?
    How can you claim to refute my best arguments when you do not even address them??]

    You hasn’t challened me on any facts so far though, it’s invariably this movement conservative stuff about the left philosophically. Individual examples of leftists who are communist or segregationist is your ideal of ‘verifiability’.

    “So he took ONE year of the administration of a democrat, the one where the tech bubble had burst, compared it to TWO middle years of the Bush administration, and thinks that that maddeningly specific numbers prove anything. Actually, this graph does:

    Which, is also a good demonstration of why if the next thing he says “(…WSJ Oct. 6 2006) The rich are paying more in real dollars since the tax cuts.” ) is true, it may well have to do with the fact that the top 5% have more of the country’s wealth than in a long time, so them paying more total in taxes? Well, I should hope that if you have more money you wouldn’t pay less taxes.”

    Yes, we’ve established that Fannie and Freddie aren’t functioning properly. I’ve addressed this earlier in this very article, and I think 99% of readers know that the private sector had trillions in murky, unregulated financial instruments, and the private sector itself (ratings agencies that YOU pay to rate YOUR loans) was the one hiding it.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    You use these words like murky and unregulated, but we showed you with a great deal of sourced information just what the regulatory scheme was and how it was undermined (mostly by Democrats getting paid) in detail. You have failed miserably in doing the same (see our “Mortgage Crisis” category towards the beginning). Also you have not shown any serious attempt at refutation for the reasons and evidence we did present. ]

    “Much of the subprime disaster could have been avoided if only the credit raters had never agreed to slap the AAA tag on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Almost no one understood these instruments, which contained portions from other pools of mortgage-backed securities, but with even less transparency. Most investors around the world had never heard of a CDO before the housing boom. But they knew what AAA meant.”

    That’s from the WSJ. If there is (massive) risk, and private agencies can lie about it, lots can go wrong.

    Because Democrats actually have a big-tent party. If you’ve watched ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’, or spoken with anyone who as alive then, you’d know that it was the individual citizen, in his constitutional freedom who would’ve stopped shopping anywhere a black person was allowed. “Who started it” is a debate that goes back 200 years, but “who ended it”, and “which side of the political coin wanted to keep it” matters. Any body want to do this one for me?

    It also is instructive that the South left the Democratic party once we’d passed civil rights, that the Republicans openly admitted they were using a ‘southern strategy’, that the republicans now consider their voters ‘reactionary’, that the argument that forcing whites to serve blacks was called ‘tyranny’ and ‘unconsititional’, and so on.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    First of all start looking at the Civil Rights and anti-slavery acts of 1789 – thats right I said 1789 (passed by the Founders). Then take a look at the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the other civil rights acts passed by the 39th Congress (all put forward and/or passed by Republicans). Then look at the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the other acts of the late 1950’s that failed when Republicans in Congress and President Eisenhower supported them and the Democrats blocked them. It was not until the movement became more popular that some Democrats embraced those Republican bills and jumped on board.

    Wes, your presentation of history is defective. ]

    “Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, “You can’t legislate morality.”
    Title II
    Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.” -Wikipedia

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    What you said here totally is consistent with what we told you about the expansion of the commerce power and consequences of it that have nothing to do with race…]

    “Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, ”We have lost the South for a generation.” ”

    “And it’s hard to ignore the decades of subtle and not-so-subtle efforts by Republican presidential tickets to court white racism-Barry Goldwater’s anti-Civil Rights Act stumping in 1964, for example, or Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign kickoff in Philadelphia, Miss., site of the ”Mississippi Burning” murders.”

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    Oh look – you forgot to mention the Democrats filibuster of the Act (led by Robert Byrd and Al Gore’s Father), and how the Democrats filibustered those Civil Rights Acts from the 1950’s…

    Reagan stood up for minorities all his life. As is so often the case Wes, your presentation of history is defective.]

    Yes, see we conisder the ‘elite mainstream media’ to be biased too, but in the sense that 34% of republicans think Obama is the anti-christ, along with a good other percentage convinced he’s a communist. We just accept some pretty commonsense positions, you know, Hitler is far right fascist, Stalin was far left communist but for YOU, it’s all leftism redux; all the leftists fault. Mainstream wisdom ascribes blame to both sides.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    And one pull showed that 30% of Democrats thought Bush bombed the WTC …. Except we don’t take them and put them in the White House like Van Jones –

    As far as Mr. Beck –

    At that link he shows the evidence, now how about some good sourced refutation I can verify.

    Beck has been correct about Crime Inc, ACORN, Van Jones, etc etc and you guys have called him names but so far the evidence has shown him to be quite correct. If you have verifiable evidence showing he is incorrect you have not presented it.

    Just you calling Beck names isn’t refutation and its a shame that you couldn’t figure that out. ]

    I’m still convinced I was unclear on who was ‘authour’ and who was ‘editor’, but all the comments still ridiculed you.

    More context at the DKos article, and I published *all* the things you said this time. Happy?

  3. Wesley said

    I’m asking you WHERE did I play the race card. I honestly don’t know why I even would, since I’ve always been convinced that you’re just wrong, I don’t even wonder if you’re racist.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Reponds – You started pulling the racial stereotypes card in your comments starting April 21st and have used it several times since then.]

    You’re still misreading history, and my comments. The SOUTH switchted to Republicans AFTER democrats passed the civil rights act. as far as i can tell, you’re espousing barry goldwater style libertarianism, and it was him who had a problem with the passage desegregating private businesses (the one that we’re actually talking about) when he was the republican presidential candidate. most of those democrats who were against that bill switched to the republican party in 1964 (the year we’re actually talking about…). essentially all the dixiecrats are gone and have gone all Zell Miller campaigning for the GOP, and the only one left was Byrd who’s dead now. This is what we’ve been talking about, since you haven’t noticed. one last time: yes the democrats did that stuff BEFORE 1964, but THEY STOPPED BEING DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THE LIBERAL LEFT PASSED CIVIL RIGHTS. this is common knowledge and you’re missing the point entirely.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    And you simply refuse to look at the history which I gave you. You see Wes your problem is that any fact that goes against your preconscieved narrative is ignored and you simply pretend that it does not exist. The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act and 82% of Republicans supported it. I have given you this information repeatedly and you refuse delivery. Republicans under Eisenhower in the 50’s tried to pass Civil Rights laws and were stopped by Democrats who filibustered and/or watered it down.

    I have given you some evidence from before that you ignored and now I am going to take your revisionist nonsense and cram it right down your throat.

    Linked below is the Official GOP Platform from 1960

    Civil Rights
    This nation was created to give expression, validity and purpose to our spiritual heritage—the supreme worth of the individual. In such a nation—a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal—racial discrimination has no place. It can hardly be reconciled with a Constitution that guarantees equal protection under law to all persons. In a deeper sense, too, it is immoral and unjust. As to those matters within reach of political action and leadership, we pledge ourselves unreservedly to its eradication.

    Equality under law promises more than the equal right to vote and transcends mere relief from discrimination by government. It becomes a reality only when all persons have equal opportunity, without distinction of race, religion, color or national origin, to acquire the essentials of life—housing, education and employment. The Republican Party—the party of Abraham Lincoln—from its very beginning has striven to make this promise a reality. It is today, as it was then, unequivocally dedicated to making the greatest amount of progress toward the objective.

    We recognize that discrimination is not a problem localized in one area of the country, but rather a problem that must be faced by North and South alike. Nor is discrimination confined to the discrimination against Negroes. Discrimination in many, if not all, areas of the country on the basis of creed or national origin is equally insidious. Further we recognize that in many communities in which a century of custom and tradition must be overcome heartening and commendable progress has been made.

    The Republican Party is proud of the civil rights record of the Eisenhower Administration. More progress has been made during the past eight years than in the preceding 80 years. We acted promptly to end discrimination in our nation’s capital. Vigorous executive action was taken to complete swiftly the desegregation of the armed forces, veterans’ hospitals, navy yards, and other federal establishments.

    We supported the position of the Negro school children before the Supreme Court. We believe the Supreme Court school decision should be carried out in accordance with the mandate of the Court.

    Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Republican Administration’s recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960—the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years.

    Hundreds of Negroes have already been registered to vote as a result of Department of Justice action, some in counties where Negroes did not vote before. The new law will soon make it possible for thousands and thousands of Negroes previously disenfranchised to vote.

    By executive order, a committee for the elimination of discrimination in government employment has been reestablished with broadened authority. Today, nearly one-fourth of all federal employees are Negro.

    The President’s Committee on Government Contracts, under the chairmanship of Vice President Nixon, has become an impressive force for the elimination of discriminatory employment practices of private companies that do business with the government.

    Other important achievements include initial steps toward the elimination of segregation in federally-aided housing; the establishment of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, which enforces federal civil rights laws; and the appointment of the bi-partisan Civil Rights Commission, which has prepared a significant report that lays the groundwork for further legislative action and progress.

    The Republican record is a record of progress—not merely promises. Nevertheless, we recognize that much remains to be done.

    Each of the following pledges is practical and within realistic reach of accomplishment. They are serious—not cynical—pledges made to result in maximum progress.

    1. Voting.
    We pledge:
    Continued vigorous enforcement of the civil rights laws to guarantee the right to vote to all citizens in all areas of the country.

    Legislation to provide that the completion of six primary grades in a state accredited school is conclusive evidence of literacy for voting purposes.

    2. Public Schools.
    We pledge:
    The Department of Justice will continue its vigorous support of court orders for school desegregation. Desegregation suits now pending involve at least 39 school districts. Those suits and others already concluded will affect most major cities in which school segregation is being practiced.

    It will use the new authority provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to prevent obstruction of court orders.

    We will propose legislation to authorize the Attorney General to bring actions for school desegregation in the name of the United States in appropriate cases, as when economic coercion or threat of physical harm is used to deter persons from going to court to establish their rights.

    Our continuing support of the President’s proposal, to extend federal aid and technical assistance to schools which in good faith attempted to desegregate.

    We oppose the pretense of fixing a target date 3 years from now for the mere submission of plans for school desegregation. Slow-moving school districts would construe it as a three-year moratorium during which progress would cease, postponing until 1963 the legal process to enforce compliance. We believe that each of the pending court actions should proceed as the Supreme Court has directed and that in no district should there be any such delay.

    3. Employment.
    We pledge:
    Continued support for legislation to establish a Commission on Equal Job Opportunity to make permanent and to expand with legislative backing the excellent work being performed by the President’s Committee on Government Contracts.

    Appropriate legislation to end the discriminatory membership practices of some labor union locals, unless such practices are eradicated promptly by the labor unions themselves.

    Use of the full-scale review of existing state laws, and of prior proposals for federal legislation, to eliminate discrimination in employment now being conducted by the Civil Rights Commission, for guidance in our objective of developing a Federal-State program in the employment area.

    Special consideration of training programs aimed at developing the skills of those now working in marginal agricultural employment so that they can obtain employment in industry, notably in the new industries moving into the South.

    4. Housing.
    We pledge:
    Action to prohibit discrimination in housing constructed with the aid of federal subsidies.

    5. Public Facilities and Services.
    We pledge:
    Removal of any vestige of discrimination in the operation of federal facilities or procedures which may at any time be found.

    Opposition to the use of federal funds for the construction of segregated community facilities.

    Action to ensure that public transportation and other government authorized services shall be free from segregation.

    6. Legislative Procedure.
    We pledge:
    Our best efforts to change present Rule 22 of the Senate and other appropriate Congressional procedures that often make unattainable proper legislative implementation of constitutional guarantees.

    We reaffirm the constitutional right to peaceable assembly to protest discrimination in private business establishments. We applaud the action of the businessmen who have abandoned discriminatory practices in retail establishments, and we urge others to follow their example.

    Finally we recognize that civil rights is a responsibility not only of states and localities; it is a national problem and a national responsibility. The federal government should take the initiative in promoting inter-group conferences among those who, in their communities, are earnestly seeking solutions of the complex problems of desegregation—to the end that closed channels of communication may be opened, tensions eased, and a cooperative solution of local problems may be sought.

    In summary, we pledge the full use of the power, resources and leadership of the federal government to eliminate discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin and to encourage understanding and good will among all races and creeds.

    Your narrative that the liberal left was republican and then went democrat is silly. Read the rest of this platform as it is staunchly anti-communist and has the same economic message that Reagan had. Today it is the Republican Party that is fighting currupt and failing teachers unions and inner city schools that are failing inner city kids especially minorities. It is Democrats who fight tooth and nail to keep inner city mionority kids in those failing schools. It is Democrats who fight voucher programs and charter schools that help get those kids in a safe, effective school. It is Democrats who raise the cost of government, taxes and corrupt regulation so high that jobs get chased out of the country. It is the lower skilled jobs that get hit the hardest. It is also Democrats who support illegal aliens mostly who take construction and other such jobs away from Soutrhern Blacks. Democrats are still fighting to maintain the status quo to this day and even with this president. This is the real record Wes – deal with it – Editor]


    because im making a vastly less sophisticated argument that you haven’t even detected somehow.
    if a bubble, by definition is irrationaly investor confidence, then how can tax cuts exclusively claim credit for economic growth? AND that bubble (real estate and financial) was
    massive, and the sources of growth during the bush years directly related to it (consumer spending for people who could refinance to lower interest rates improving retail sales and corporate tax receipts as it was value-less financial paper profits that had the most to gain). get it? AND, if businesses get to pay the people declaring their risk, how can the market EVER function? no republican effort has been mentioned by you to rein in credit ratings agencies.

    You also haven’t addressed how profitable predatory lending is, and even if it was ‘discovered’ because they were forced initially, you have to realize predatory lending, as in, risky lending, is common because it’s profitable! banks were operating on financial calculations that the housing market would forever expand, and investors were convinced profits would keep going up. That’s an outright lie that has nothing to do with fannie and freddie and if you think the government is exclusively responsible for hiding risk then you’re simply uninformed.

    again, all of this was BEFORE 1964 BEFORE those segregationist democrats literally changed their affiliation to republican, and republicans started to firmly hold the south. THIS IS WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, since you haven’t noticed. the democrats, POST 1964 never had a southern strategy, adn you still haven’t been addressing the main, relevant aspects that i’ve been pointing out!

    you should notice that he WAS a democrat before 1964, but that’s not even my argument, that he’s in favour of segregation or something. i’m saying they were intentionally playing the racists for their own benefit, that they’re willing to send messages as disgusting as that one I mentioned. as for reagan, that’s about the worst he did, because he was a reasonably guy who by the way raised taxes during a recession. im talking about the strategy, and the fact that those democrats have been switching to republican up until this point where democrats are solidly progressive and those people you’re talking about are either campainging for the GOP or DEAD.

    Okay, I’m on break and have to go. But do you know that nowhere, anywhere, have they been found guilty? that those tapes were heavily edited? the guy they showed took down so much information about the smuggling because he called the police 5 minutes later, that James O’Keefe himself now is going to jail for crimes against the US government, that the person they showed ‘trying to help them smuggle prositutes’ lost his job, and is now suing because it’s been proven he did the right thing….at least a retraction would be nice, but insisting STILL that that acorn thing wasn’t nonsense? yeesh.


  4. Wesley said

    Have I mentioned that I’m 16 years old? See, at first, I did hold out just the slightest possibility that you’re right. So no, I’m not rejecting everything you say; I was so worried you’re right that I didn’t want you using my age against me! But this is actually all really simple, IUSB Editor.

    You’re again referring to BEFORE 1964. No party was segregationist after that, and both were less and less before. Desegregating the armed forces? That was Truman, famously. And again, do you not know that it was LBJ who signed the civil rights act into law? I’m saying a known fact that MANY (most) southern segregationists switched to the Republican party, not that the liberal left was republican before. And yes, a higher percentage of democrats voted against it (I was the one who pointed that out first…) because there was MORE OF THEM, and it’s very easy to find out that a good number of them immediatly switched. Since you’re unaware of that well-known fact, then I think I know where the discrepancy in our viewpoints arises.

    Then again, it’s you railing against Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive tax structure, and btw its the Payne (Yes, Thomas Payne) tax that was first meant to redistribute wealth, so maybe liberals did used to be GOP.

    Obama also supports charter schools.

    And please don’t act like poor people are actually a bigger concern than the businesses themselves. All those european welfare states, ALL of them, have lower mortality rates, higher standards of living, and if the political parties here can get credit for taking care of the black people by being business friendly, then those european parties should at least get their due as well.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds

    Wes –

    I am beginning to believe that you are 16, because you refuse delivery on any fact you find inconvenient. If you take a class on political parties you would know that at the turn of the century BOTH parties had a liberal, conservative and a progressive wing. Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the armed forces and he is a progressive icon. Hence you would know that Herbert Hoover (the last republican progressive president) was an economic interventionist and big government central planning type. FDR continued and extended his policies.

    Umm read the platform Wes, 1960 came BEFORE 1964.

    Obama supports charter schools you say, which is why he pushed for and signed legislation to take vouchers for charter and private schools away from those Washington DC black kids which we wrote about here.

    AS far as European mortality rates… did you know that those rates compiled by the WHO include police who shoot bad guys, bad guys who shoot each other and people who die in WAR and in military accidents. Tell me Wes who has troops around the world fighting for other peoples freedom? France had a heat wave and had thousands of old people die.

    When those numbers are taken out the mortality rate in the US is less than most of those countries and the United States is ranked number 1 by the WHO as far as access to and level and responsiveness of medical care. I published that information on this web site.

    Bigotry against blacks, turks and Jews in Europe is off the scale and way way WAY worse than the United States. Maybe you should go there and see for yourself. And their standard of living, are you kidding me? While a couple of European countries are comparable, most of Europe just isn’t.

    Wes, since you are a minor I am going to do something for your own good. You are a kid and you have made a complete fool of yourself here. People know who you are and these posts are going to follow you around on the internet for the rest of your life as Google caches everything. For your own protection I am going to put you on the blacklist which means you will not be able to post here any more. I now have to seriously consider pulling all of your posts down. You are a minor and are not yet responsible enough to use judgment that is best for you. While I am pondering taking down all of your posts if your parents wish me to take them all down they are free to write me and I will pull them all down.

    While we believe in free speech here, the consequences of these posts following you around for life destroying your credibility for now is more important. If you were an adult, I would be content with you taking the consequences of your own foolishness, as a kid I am not so certain.]

  5. Elizabeth Gumbe said

    I’m terribly sorry to be so misleading; clearly I am Wesley, but being trashed this much, I want at least people to know that FactCheck backs me up, and you may not have seen my last comment since you ‘blacklisted’ me.

    “Supply-side Spin
    June 11, 2007
    Sen. John McCain has said President Bush’s tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.
    Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have “increased revenues.” He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.”

    Of course, you may be so much a genius that is no match. In which case, I guess I give up.


    IUSB Vision Editor Responds,

    Wesley, The reason I have blacklisted you is very clear, you are a minor who has written some foolish things that could follow you around for the rest of your life. Until the day you turn 18, quite frankly you need adults to protect you from your own foolishness.

    With that said, in this case you have made academic, logical and economic mistakes that many adults have so I am going to let this post through. For starters, “appeals to authority” ergo – “I am right cause says so” make for very bad arguments and limit understanding not foster it. With evidence you can verify and look up for yourself (and I have just posted a little and have much more if anyone asks) I am going to dismantle what they had to say here and show why most journalists make bad economists. gets it wrong quite frequently. They are journalists with no understanding of economics and it shows. In this case they also selectively chose their sources to make a case that is just plain wrong and the evidence shows this clearly.

    I see that quoted a few newspaper articles – hmmm Wes tell me why they missed all of THESE:


    1 – Mr. Bush signed the most recent tax cuts into law in the spring of 2003. In the past 33 months the size of America’s entire economy has increased by 20%–or, as National Review Online’s Larry Kudlow put it, “In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy.”

    Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% increased capital gains tax receipts by 79% from 2000 to 2004. Cutting the dividend tax rate by more than half–from 39.6% to 15%–increased dividend tax receipts by 35% from 2002 to 2004. And corporate tax receipts have nearly tripled since 2003, reaching $250 billion for the past nine months, 26% higher than the same period last year. (WSJ July 25, 2006)


    2 – WASHINGTON — The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four-year low of $247.7 billion _ a figure President Bush touted Wednesday as “proof that pro-growth policies work.” The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing Bush a welcome economic talking point as Republicans battle to hold onto control of Congress in the midterm elections. (AP Oct. 11, 2006)


    3 – Tax collections have increased by $521 billion in the last two fiscal years, the largest two-year revenue increase — even after adjusting for inflation — in American history. If you’re surprised to hear that, it’s probably because inside Washington this is treated as the only secret no one wants to print. On the few occasions when the media pay attention to the rise in tax collections, they scratch their heads and wonder where this “surprise-ing” and “unexpected windfall” came from. (WSJ – Human Events)


    4 – One place it has come from are corporations, whose tax collections have climbed by 76% over the past two years thanks to greater profitability. Personal income tax payments are up by 30.3% since 2004 too, despite the fact that the highest tax rate is down to 35% from 39.6%. The IRS tax-return data just released last month indicates that a near-record 37% of those income tax payments are received from the top 1% of earners — “the rich,” who are derided regularly in Washington for not paying their “fair share.” (WSJ Oct. 6 2006) [The rich are paying more in real dollars since the tax cuts.]


    5 – A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month. In its monthly accounting of the government’s books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005. (AP May 10, 2006)


    6 – The U.S. economy grew at a revised 5.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter, as the fastest pace of growth in 2-1/2 years generated robust corporate profits, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. (Reuters June 20, 2006)


    7 – WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief. (NYT July 9, 2006)


    8 – Hiring perked up in August as employers added 128,000 jobs, pulling down the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, sending a Labor Day message that the economic expansion still has staying power. The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is not in danger of fizzling out. (AP Sept. 1, 2006)


    9 – In the 2 1/4 years before the 2003 tax cuts, economic growth averaged 1.1% annually; in the three years since it has averaged 4% per year, and in the first quarter of this year it was 5.6% on an annualized basis. Inflation-adjusted per capita GDP has grown 7.8% from 2003 through the first quarter of this year.

    According to the government’s establishment survey, in the 36 months since the tax cuts became law, 5.3 million new jobs have been added to the economy. According to its employment survey, 288,000 jobs were added in May and 387,000 in June. The unemployment rate dropped from 6.1% when the bills were signed to 5.4% at the end of 2004 and 4.6% today, and the rate has gone down for men, women, blacks and Hispanics. Hourly wage rates for workers are up 3.9% in the past year, and they increased at an annualized rate of 4.6% in the second quarter of this year, the highest quarterly rate in nearly 10 years.

    Incomes are up too. As Stephen Moore noted in The Wall Street Journal, “the percentage of Americans earning more than $50,000 a year rose from 40.8% to 44.2%” between 2002 and 2004. As for very wealthy families, the portion of total income “captured by the richest 1%, 5% and 10% of Americans is lower today than in the last year of the Clinton administration.”

    All this has been good news for the government. Federal tax receipts increased by 15%– $274 billion–last year and 13%– $206 billion–in the first nine months of this fiscal year, which, as the Journal points out, means the nine-month increases for the past two years represent the highest growth rates in 25 years. Looking ahead to the end of this fiscal year, total inflation-adjusted government receipts will likely be 23% above 2003 when the Bush tax cuts were signed into law. (

    The Bush administration inherited a recession. After the tax cuts government revenue went up and we had 55 months of uninterrupted job growth, which is a record.

    So Wesley, if is so reliable and accurate, tell me do they just not read the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, the Associated Press, the New York Times and the government reports and other data referenced in these few press reports alone? I have a WHOLE lot more evidence where these came from. I have a news and data archive going back almost 20 years that I update almost every day.

    Wesley, it is as anyone with decent economics training can tell you. Most government agencies use strict Keynesian modeling which means that they do not observe widely accepted economics concepts as the Broken Window Theory, Okun’s Leaky Bucket, the Laffer Curve, and Game Theory (which was featured in the film a beautiful mind) just to name a few.

    Let me tell you how the CBO or a Federal Reserve report would cover this. According to strict Keynesian “static” models they look at the increased revenue from the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton or Bush tax cuts and say “if we just kept the tax revenue at the old rate (in Kennedy’s case 90% to 70% – Or in Reagan’s case the top marginal revenue from 70% to 28%) the revenue would have gone up even more”. Keynesian models to not take into account the changes in economic behavior when you change the rules. According to Keynesian models as long as government spending compensates, government revenue goes up continually even if you tax people passed 90% of their income. It doesn’t work that way IRL.

    Keynesian models are overly simplistic, easy to manipulate, and do not reflect real world economic behavior. In short Keynesian models amount to easy math for simpletons which is why so many bad economists and lazy academics prefer them.

    According to strict Keynesian models, Medicare at 20 years out would have cost 40 billion a year, instead it cost 400 billion.

    According to strict Keynesian “static” models, The Reagan tax cuts lowered government revenue, instead that revenue doubled.

    According to strict Keynesian “static” models, When Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 90% to 70% the revenue should have went way down, instead it went way up.

    According to strict Keynesian models, The stimulus package should have kept unemployment below 8% and done wonders for the economy.

    According to strict Keynesian “static”models, when Clinton/Gingrich lowered the capital gains tax rate government revenue should have tanked, but instead lowering the rate caused receipts from the tax to explode. Even Peter Jennings pointed this out to Obama in the debate when Obama said that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate.

    According to strict Keynesian models, ObamaCare will be deficit neutral – ROFL

    Wesley, the record of Keynesian projections and such is so bad that they are almost always not even close. This is why most long term CBO and other government tax and revenue projections are not only almost never right, but are usually off by a long-shot.

    PS – Wes did you happen to notice that most of the economists who saw the collapse coming and most of the ones that predicted current economic conditions (Like myself) and a double dip recession unless policy changes big time are those economists who reject Keynesian-ism? Dr. Hayek who won the Nobel Prize for Economics (back when that prize actually meant something) for his method to detect and predict market bubbles was a strict anti-Keynesian.

    PSS – Wes here is another example of Keynesian Economics. Lets say McDonalds has a sale on Hamburgers at 50 cents each. As a result instead of selling 200 a day they sold 1000 a day as a result of the sale. So that day McDonalds made $500 just on hamburgers alone, but also saw increased sales of soft drinks, fries, shakes and cookies that day which all sold for full price.

    According to the Keynesian “static” model if McDonalds would have just sold those burgers for $2.00 each they would have brought in more revenue. In fact if McDonalds had sold those burgers for $20.00 each they would have made a total killing. Keynesian “static” models do not compensate for the fact that if a burger cost $2.00 or 20.00 they would have sold a great deal less. The economic reality is that companies like McDonalds have sales to increase profits, not lose them.

    Here is another example. Lets say that City Bus Service handles 30,000 customers a day. So they raise the one way bus fair from 1 dollar to 20 dollars. According to the Keynesian “static” model we just increased revenue 20 times! WOW. Lets publish a government report!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: