It's that bad? Really?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Every report header is gonna be a graphic of Ronald Reagan smiling and flipping the bird.
Well basically it's supposed to calculate the positive effect of tax cuts on the economy. When someone says they've calculated that cutting taxes leads to more revenue or jobs this is what they mean. So far there's been no proof that it has any relation to reality, Bloomberg went to ask the Canadian version of the CBO about it and they agree with the Dems that it's shit. It's an ideological based system rather than empirically based.
Also this.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
If they really go ahead with it, its the end of the CBO as anything resembling a impartial fact based ref.
It makes them partisan cheerleaders.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
GOP sweep. Happy 2015
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I think your answer is right there.
The civil war divide is back. I just can't figure out how that happened, it is not like there is anything racially polarizing right now, is there? :-/
Aaron Strife
Banned
KY could be a hold but nowhere near the safe hold it was in 2011.
speculawyer
Member
So what? Those states have been raking in billions for a few years and acting like they were economic geniuses. It is about time they shared the wealth a bit.
Texas has been using their oil money to subsidize their revenues such that they were able to poach companies from other states like California by offering tax-cuts. Now that won't be as easy to do. Boo-hoo.
Besides, everyone with a brain knew they wouldn't last forever. It's their fault for not diversifying their economies when they had the chance.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Didn't Duke win less than 40% of the vote?From the article said:
Practically a dead heat!
Are we still doing that?
That margin is so thin I could shave with it!
Avon Barksdale
Member
I saw a pickup truck with two Ben Carson 2016 stickers on it.
It will be the literal end of the CBO as a nonpartisan scoring institution, and we will start referring to nonpartisan (or Democratic) think tank analysis and explaining that the CBO is Fox News economics.
I'm not exaggerating at all.
You would think it'd be easy to argue against the dynamic scoring bullshit by bringing up one thing: the Bush tax cuts.
We had those for ten years (!!!!) and we never saw any explosion in revenue like the supply-siders argued. Hell, if I'm not mistaken (someone can correct me), it actually underdelivered compared to CBO's original estimates which they based on static scoring.
Even Ronaldus Magnus, who as we all know had the greatest economic growth in the history of civilization, even his tax cuts never broke even, let alone provided an excess of revenues. And then we have our most recent example of trickle-down success with the great state of Kansas.
Hell, now that I think about it, has there ever been ANY time in U.S. history where tax cuts led to more revenue collected than if they were never enacted?
Yeah, this is something conservatives love to do. Take revenues from other sources, like oil, fracking, etc. and act like it was due to their shitty economic policies. It'll be amusing to see them argue why all their FREEDOM wasn't able to save their state finances.
We had those for ten years (!!!!) and we never saw any explosion in revenue like the supply-siders argued. Hell, if I'm not mistaken (someone can correct me), it actually underdelivered compared to CBO's original estimates which they based on static scoring.
Even Ronaldus Magnus, who as we all know had the greatest economic growth in the history of civilization, even his tax cuts never broke even, let alone provided an excess of revenues. And then we have our most recent example of trickle-down success with the great state of Kansas.
Hell, now that I think about it, has there ever been ANY time in U.S. history where tax cuts led to more revenue collected than if they were never enacted?
Yeah, this is something conservatives love to do. Take revenues from other sources, like oil, fracking, etc. and act like it was due to their shitty economic policies. It'll be amusing to see them argue why all their FREEDOM wasn't able to save their state finances.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Soo...guys where the hell is Dax?
Haven't seen her post in God knows how long.
Haven't seen her post in God knows how long.
benjipwns
Banned
Obama shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt imo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xt8WIPIwp4
Soo...guys where the hell is Dax?
Haven't seen her post in God knows how long.
She's on the twitters all the time - fun account!
@Dax01
Wait, if Obama was the one who wanted to get into Putin's pants, how is that date rape?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Mario Cuomo passed
WayneMorse
Banned
RIP. Was probably one of the most powerful voices of the left during the Reagan years, shame his son doesn't follow his style of politics.
I just saw it on NY1, he was ridiculously popular with pretty much everyone in the state. He's like the one guy I never heard anyone here say anything bad about. Governor Cuomo was literally sworn in hours ago. They moved it to NYC from Albany so they could spend New Year's with him.
benjipwns
Banned
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/90dec/cuomo.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/90dec/cuomo2.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/90dec/cuomo2.htm
Well, except that one time in 1994.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The 1993 repeal of the 1991 luxury tax is the one we had to learn about in econ 101, but upon looking it up, it seems the GAO believed the drop in sales and employment was not related to the tax, but the general economy as a whole.
In the end, the luxury tax on boats, aircraft, jewelry, and fur only lasted 2.5 years. It was obviously a political failure, seeing as that was the time when reaganomics were at their hottest, but I do have to wonder if it was the economic failure that they teach in books.
Yeah the luxury tax is one that I've heard even liberal economists say they weren't too hot on. But I was actually referring more to marginal rate tax cuts in income taxes and capital gains.
benjipwns
Banned
The problem is that you're projecting either way based on a significant series of unfounded assumptions.
You can't assume revenues will match projections at any rates because you can't project the future change in available incomes to tax at any rates.
The Alternative Minimum Tax is a perfect example of this in terms of taxes. The costs of Medicare is a perfect example in terms of spending.
The AMT was designed to target 150 families that fell into a "loophole" of the tax code that existed at the time. Social Security and Medicare were similarly limited in their original targets and never accounted for the inflation and default in the 1970s (since they...well...couldn't) and so both their inflow and outflow projections when enacted were wildly off base.
There's also the recent and often mocked projections for the unemployment rate under the stimulus. It didn't account for an assumption that the economy would be stagnate or get worse because it couldn't. For both practical AND political reasons.
You're basically operating from the same series of assumptions that makes this empirically "true" but ultimately meaningless in terms of devising solutions:
CBO scoring under any system ultimately has no value outside of political value where Paul Ryan can game it to project his plans assured success or Democrats can work their legislation until it comes in under a certain number projection that'd be easier to repeat in negative talking points because people don't comprehend large values appropriately.
You can't assume revenues will match projections at any rates because you can't project the future change in available incomes to tax at any rates.
The Alternative Minimum Tax is a perfect example of this in terms of taxes. The costs of Medicare is a perfect example in terms of spending.
The AMT was designed to target 150 families that fell into a "loophole" of the tax code that existed at the time. Social Security and Medicare were similarly limited in their original targets and never accounted for the inflation and default in the 1970s (since they...well...couldn't) and so both their inflow and outflow projections when enacted were wildly off base.
There's also the recent and often mocked projections for the unemployment rate under the stimulus. It didn't account for an assumption that the economy would be stagnate or get worse because it couldn't. For both practical AND political reasons.
You're basically operating from the same series of assumptions that makes this empirically "true" but ultimately meaningless in terms of devising solutions:
CBO scoring under any system ultimately has no value outside of political value where Paul Ryan can game it to project his plans assured success or Democrats can work their legislation until it comes in under a certain number projection that'd be easier to repeat in negative talking points because people don't comprehend large values appropriately.
OH BOY
Wow, he's so moderate!
The problem is that you're projecting either way based on a significant series of unfounded assumptions.
You can't assume revenues will match projections at any rates because you can't project the future change in available incomes to tax at any rates.
The Alternative Minimum Tax is a perfect example of this in terms of taxes. The costs of Medicare is a perfect example in terms of spending.
The AMT was designed to target 150 families that fell into a "loophole" of the tax code that existed at the time. Social Security and Medicare were similarly limited in their original targets and never accounted for the inflation and default in the 1970s (since they...well...couldn't) and so both their inflow and outflow projections when enacted were wildly off base.
There's also the recent and often mocked projections for the unemployment rate under the stimulus. It didn't account for an assumption that the economy would be stagnate or get worse because it couldn't. For both practical AND political reasons.
You're basically operating from the same series of assumptions that makes this empirically "true" but ultimately meaningless in terms of devising solutions:
CBO scoring under any system ultimately has no value outside of political value where Paul Ryan can game it to project his plans assured success or Democrats can work their legislation until it comes in under a certain number projection that'd be easier to repeat in negative talking points because people don't comprehend large values appropriately.
Well the stimulus bit is kinda different cause iirc, the report was created before there was an even bigger dip immediately the month after the report was written. But to your larger point, I agree with what you're saying, but I believe the point is that certain economists try to account for any negative possibilities whereas mainly with conservative economists, they tend to overinflate the value of their policies.
benjipwns
Banned
He didn't have a shot at winning Iowa anyway if any of the "names" like Huckabee or Cruz run. He can win NH a week later and blunt it like McCain did.
The problem is if someone like Perry who can raise competing money wins.
The CBO has for years published with an alternative model that assumes a number of negatives but you rarely hear of it whenever politicians or talking heads discuss CBO projections to support/bash this or that.
The problem is if someone like Perry who can raise competing money wins.
But that's exactly my point in mentioning it. Projections are written in the moment based on a series of assumptions not actual knowledge of future reality. Things can change within a month. 9/11 was another one that sent projections (including on the Bush Tax Cuts) into a tail-spin.
The CBO has for years published with an alternative model that assumes a number of negatives but you rarely hear of it whenever politicians or talking heads discuss CBO projections to support/bash this or that.
Joe Molotov
Member
Because one might not be enough.
Coriolanus
Banned
So what youre saying is that you despise metereology?
benjipwns
Banned
Day to day weather is mangled by human action?
Alternative answer: Living in Michigan, weather forecasts beyond 24 hours are just done to employ people like Nancy Gribble.
New Hampshire will always be the must win for the moderate candidate who wants to stay alive in the race. A conservative will win Iowa, and any moderate who wishes to have a real shot at winning needs to win New Hampshire. Otherwise, if you're two states in and already lost both, you're going to start scaring off money and the press will stop caring about you and you won't be seen as a legitimate candidate.
Conceivably, Jed could come in second in Iowa and New Hampshire and still be alive, but it's tough. He needs to win New Hampshire.
speculawyer
Member
benjipwns
Banned
One difference is that the GOP primaries will be structured by design in 2016 so candidates can stay in longer thanks to proportional allocation and setting up multiple "Super Tuesdays" later in the process.
This will especially be the case if polling stays like it does with everybody smashed into a few points of each other and no satisfactory compromise candidate. Except Rick Perry until eventual nominee Scott Walker surges ahead to take it.
This will especially be the case if polling stays like it does with everybody smashed into a few points of each other and no satisfactory compromise candidate. Except Rick Perry until eventual nominee Scott Walker surges ahead to take it.
speculawyer
Member
Well . . . yes. Since the climate has been changed by human action, that means the day to day weather has been affected by human action. That is not complicated.
And sometimes, it will be colder. The polar vortex is a thing. The disruptions of the jetstream do cause colder temps in some areas . . . generally with higher temps in other areas.
Climate change is real and all the deniers are gonna end up with a black eye for their "climate change stopped" nonsense since 2014 is probably going to be the hottest year on record.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55pRU0xxcXA#t=59
The anti-science aspect of the conservative movement is seriously the most embarrassing aspect of it. Most self-respecting people have abandoned it because of that. (Evolution, birth control, climate change, stem cells, etc.)
benjipwns
Banned
So the current weather forecast for next Tuesday will be accurate because...climate change happens and humans can affect it?
EDIT: As referenced by noted pollunskewer Nate Silver:
Coriolanus
Banned
To an extent.
It's sort of funny this is how it's going to be structured, especially since the Republican party establishments seems to want to do everything in its power to make this a quick and painless primary.
Then, it's Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Utah. There's no data on Utah, but:
-- Jeb was 7th in a poll in Colorado in September.
-- Jeb was winning a poll in Minnesota in April (with Walker in 10th behind Condoleezza Rice which is uh )
-- The last poll for New York was in 2013, and Christie had 40% of the vote there, which makes sense.
Again, there haven't been any real recent polls and there have been a lot of recent developments, but it hurts Jeb that the states where Jeb is polling ahead (Florida, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina) aren't the first 5 primaries (it does look like North Carolina and South Carolina are early-ish, which is be good for him if he can stay afloat by then).
Who knows, though. Polling hasn't really started in earnest. We need more polls. More polls.
ramuh
Member
I love polls!
benjipwns
Banned
Say the total taxable amount is $1 trillion and the tax rate is a flat rate of 25%.
Now assume the CBO models with 3% growth, over ten years you expect $2.86 trillion in revenue.
If instead you have five years of just 1% contraction followed by 1% growth that drops revenue to $2.46 trillion over ten years.
Tax policy is unchanged yet your difference in revenue increases to 77% of the projection in the tenth year. And overall you bring in only 86% of projected revenue.
If you start with a balanced budget and increase spending by 2% a year you go from a ten year surplus of $128.5 billion with $27 billion surplus in the final year to a ten year deficit of $274.9 billion with the final year having a $46.3 billion deficit. Again, with policy completely unchanged.
This was the CBO's projections for deficits in 2007:
By 2009 this was their projection:
And from there:
Now assume the CBO models with 3% growth, over ten years you expect $2.86 trillion in revenue.
If instead you have five years of just 1% contraction followed by 1% growth that drops revenue to $2.46 trillion over ten years.
Tax policy is unchanged yet your difference in revenue increases to 77% of the projection in the tenth year. And overall you bring in only 86% of projected revenue.
If you start with a balanced budget and increase spending by 2% a year you go from a ten year surplus of $128.5 billion with $27 billion surplus in the final year to a ten year deficit of $274.9 billion with the final year having a $46.3 billion deficit. Again, with policy completely unchanged.
This was the CBO's projections for deficits in 2007:
By 2009 this was their projection:
And from there:
I mean, yes. Obviously economy is more of a dismal soft science, and a long-term economic projection of any sort is pretty unreliable. But that doesn't mean that it is completely useless to use economic projections to make short-term plans, nor that it is not a bad idea to deliberately change the assumptions you're using to make them less resemble reality.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Say the total taxable amount is $1 trillion and the tax rate is a flat rate of 25%.
Now assume the CBO models with 3% growth, over ten years you expect $2.86 trillion in revenue.
If instead you have five years of just 1% contraction followed by 1% growth that drops revenue to $2.46 trillion over ten years.
Tax policy is unchanged yet your difference in revenue increases to 77% of the projection in the tenth year. And overall you bring in only 86% of projected revenue.
If you start with a balanced budget and increase spending by 2% a year you go from a ten year surplus of $128.5 billion with $27 billion surplus in the final year to a ten year deficit of $274.9 billion with the final year having a $46.3 billion deficit. Again, with policy completely unchanged.
This was the CBO's projections for deficits in 2007:
By 2009 this was their projection:
And from there:
You're really going to hold the 2007 projections against the CBO? Of course they can't predict the great recession happening, it's not their job to.
It's also not their job to predict change in budget policy. That's why in 2012 they predicted the deficits to be lower over time because the Budget Control Act of 2011 had some pretty radical long term cuts in spending which has been undone in subsequent years. I think they even made sure to note on what things look like without the BCA, because it was clear the politicians didn't intend it to be long term, even though current law technically made it long term, which looked similar to the 2011 and 2013 projections, but obviously that can't be their official projection.
Their primary job is to calculate the impact congressional policy will have on the budget. They can make additional random statements about the impact policy has on the economy, like saying ACA raises unemployment because it allows people the security to quit their job that they don't like, but when it comes to the hard budget data they spend most of their time with, they do make as few assumptions as possible.
If anything, you trying to prove that the CBO sucks at predicting the general economy is the best argument against dynamic scoring, because dynamic scoring attaches the thing they mostly suck at to the thing they mostly don't.
benjipwns
Banned
Yeah, that's my point. GIGO.
Great! My posts will still resonate with unimpeachable facts even when the GOP changes the scoring methodology.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked