The Acme B.S. Detector

[metis]

I just received my new and improved Acme B.S. Detector yesterday and I tried it out last night.  I happened to be watching CNN and McCain was giving a speech in Houston when my detector sounded an alarm.  I just happened to have the detector set on "flip-flop mode" (he has voted against it previously), and when McCain talked about his support for off-shore drilling, it registered an 8 out of 10 max. 

And then when, just by coincidence, I flipped it over to the "pandering mode", it caught a replay of a previous McCain speech whereas he says he wants to roll back the federal tax on gas for the summer (which solves next to nothing, plus will delay needed construction and repairs along with laying off many thousands of construction workers), which registered a 9.

I was going to use my Acme B.S. Detector last night with Fox "News" with the "pseudo-news mode" (like Hannity falsely claiming that China is going to be drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba), but I was very concerned that there may be too much of an overload, thus burning out the system.  So, today I'm ordering the Acme B.S. Detector With Industrial-Strength Circuit-Breakers.

Anyhow, I'll keep you all posted on what else this detector manages to pick up.   

[Thorolf]

Haha... funny.

I will say this - McCain has changed his position (or at least his words) with respect to offshore drilling. Of course, the situation has changed rather dramatically in recent months, and he has not yet changed his position on other types of drilling, like in ANWR.

As for "pandering," McCain has been pushing for a gas tax "vacation" for a very long time. He's been remarkably consistent on it in the face of criticism... I'm not sure who you think he's pandering to - I actually think he really believes that's a good idea.

And he may be right... it may not cut gas prices by a dollar or two, but in theory it would have an immediate impact of something in the neighborhood of 20 cents a gallon.

It's not a huge number, to be sure... but something is better than nothing, isn't it? Especially with summer vacations rapidly approaching...


As for China... I'm glad you're watching Fox News, but Hannity did nothing wrong. It was reported last week that China was drilling for oil just about 60 miles from Florida. George Will wrote about it the previous week. That appears to be incorrect - but Cuba *HAS* leased to China exploration blocks just 60 miles off Florida's coast, and they are apparently drilling in Cuba itself... So in fact, Hannity is probably correct - China has the ability, has leased the blocks, and has the oil demands to CERTAINLY drill just 60 miles off the Florida coast.

US companies can't drill off our own coasts, but China, Spain, Canada, etc... can.

And this is not new information.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19479

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4177282.shtml

[metis]

As for "pandering," McCain has been pushing for a gas tax "vacation" for a very long time. He's been remarkably consistent on it in the face of criticism... I'm not sure who you think he's pandering to - I actually think he really believes that's a good idea.  And he may be right... it may not cut gas prices by a dollar or two, but in theory it would have an immediate impact of something in the neighborhood of 20 cents a gallon.

18cents, I believe.  And what about the needed repairs, new construction, and the tens of thousands who would be laid off?  It makes so little sense, and I was very opposed to the idea when Hillary backed it as well, I might add.  Would John or Hillary have made such a proposal if it wasn't an election year?  I doubt it very much.

[Thorolf]

As for "pandering," McCain has been pushing for a gas tax "vacation" for a very long time. He's been remarkably consistent on it in the face of criticism... I'm not sure who you think he's pandering to - I actually think he really believes that's a good idea.  And he may be right... it may not cut gas prices by a dollar or two, but in theory it would have an immediate impact of something in the neighborhood of 20 cents a gallon.

18cents, I believe.  And what about the needed repairs, new construction, and the tens of thousands who would be laid off?  It makes so little sense, and I was very opposed to the idea when Hillary backed it as well, I might add.  Would John or Hillary have made such a proposal if it wasn't an election year?  I doubt it very much.

What do repairs, construction, and employment have to do with it? NONE of that would be impacted... the budgets have already been approved, and the projected revenue from gas tax has, I believe, long since been raised for the entire budget period. Remember - taxes are a percentage of the pump price. With prices so high, tax revenues have also skyrocketed.

A 3-month gas tax vacation would mean absolutely nothing to anything those taxes theoretically fund.

And I thought McCain suggested this last year... although I could be wrong on that. 

[metis]

What do repairs, construction, and employment have to do with it? NONE of that would be impacted... the budgets have already been approved, and the projected revenue from gas tax has, I believe, long since been raised for the entire budget period. Remember - taxes are a percentage of the pump price. With prices so high, tax revenues have also skyrocketed.

On CNN about two weeks ago, seven economists discussed this along with certain other issues, and not a single one supported the halt in the collection of the tax, which is on-going funding.  Matter of fact, they all laughed at the idea. 

I never said or implied that somehow the problems would be immediate, but the tax revenues feed the funds that allow for construction and repair as part of an on-going process.  Therefore, your position is badly flawed, unless you are willing to increase taxes afterwords.  On top of that, these repairs and new construction costs continue to increase because of inflation both with fuel and the products used, so collecting extra money in one hand merely passes it to the other to pay for these increases.

[Thorolf]

Economists on CNN, eh? Well, I'm sure there are no economists briefing McCain and Hillary... 

There would be no need to increase taxes, and not a single person would need to be laid off, not a single road repair would have to be delayed, and not a single new road scheduled would not be built. There would be ZERO long-term side effects in terms of things that get funded by those 18 pennies a gallon. The suggestion that there would be is an excuse to keep generating that lovely revenue...


And lest things get out of control and I find myself defending a concept that I don't actually favor... I actually don't think this gas tax holiday is a good idea. I just was pointing out that McCain has been consistent on it for a while, and that it would reduce the price at the pump - at least for a while.

The problem, in my mind, is that it would likely increase demand. With OPEC limiting supply, that means price would likely jump again, and by the time the 18 cents is added back on, gas will be at the price point it was before the gas tax was suspended.

Incidentally, OPEC countries intentionally limiting supply is one of the reasons to drill here now.

[metis]

Darn!  My handy-dandy Acme B.B. Detector' alarm went off last night and I had to shut it off because it was smoking.  It turned out I made two mistakes.  One was that I inadvertently left it on "flip-flop mode" and "pandering mode" at the same time.  The second mistake is that I didn't realize that the Detector had such a good memory even though it was only activated a couple of days ago.  I'll explain.

It all started when I was listening to a spokesman from the Army Corps of Engineers talking about the levees on our river systems, including the Mississippi.  Even though most of the flooding couldn't have been prevented because the water levels were and are too high, still two of the levees broke and more are expected to break due to the fact that they needed to be updated.  When asked if the Army Corp requested funds to do so, he said that they have continually requested these funds over recent years but they never got the budgeted (and who's in charge of the getting the budget put together?  Hmmmm).  When asked to grade our infrastructure, he said it would be a D at best.

But what we have seen by the current administration is tax cut after tax cut, while at the same time running a budget deficit that is of astronomical proportions.  This cannot be blamed on the Democrats.  In his eight years as President, Congress cut Reagan's budget proposals seven times.  Conservative economist Milton Freedman (author of "Free To Choose", which is an excellent book for true conservatives) and conservative David Stockman (the "boy wonder") both quit Reagan's administration because of, as the senior George Bush called it, "voodoo economics".  And Stockman later blasted the administration as being like "reckless liberals".

Then we had an interlude whereas we had a President by the name of Clinton, who actually was willing to face criticism, raise taxes, and actually create a balance budget with a surplus.  A surplus!  But, of course, the Republicans immediately tried to take credit for that while at the same time chastising Clinton for increasing taxes.  And then we come to "W", who has made Reagan's "reckless liberalism" look tame by comparison.

The unfortunate reality is that the Republican Party has been usurped by fiscal pseudo-conservatives.  Freedman and Stockman were more than upset just over the tremendous deficit spending-- they were also angered over the irresponsibility of Reaganites to explain to the American public that true conservatism involves switching emphasis, including taxes, more in the direction of local and state and less with the fed.  But that's not what Reagan said.  Instead, his mantra was cut, cut, cut across the board, and never explain to the American public that, as Freedman called it, cutting taxes across the board would be irresponsible.  So why did Reagan do it?  Because people like to hear that their taxes are too high and need to be cut.  "Pandering", and that's with a capital "P".

Not only did "W" continue on this same disastrous path-- he has accelerated it.  And what is McCain now saying-- tax cut, tax cut, tax cut.  And this is all being done while our infrastructure is crumbling from old age and our budget deficit is hurting the value of the American dollar.  And with the dollar being devalued, more and more American companies are being purchased by overseas investors, and China owns so much of our debt, if we ran into difficulty with them and they decided to call in what we owe them, it could easily create a depression here and elsewhere (however, China also would be affected by such a move as well, so the above scenario is not likely to occur).

But this budget deficit is also mortgaging the future of our kids and grandchildren, and that's not just a cliche.  Since loans accumulate interest, the proportion of interest we have to pay investors, many of which are foreign, has been continually increasing.  This means that an increasing amount of our tax revenues buys nothing except the interest we have to pay.  Why is the value of the American dollar vis-a-vis other currencies so low?  Investors look at where to put their money, and that too gets involved in the law of supply and demand.  The less demand, the less value the currency has at the International Monetary Exchange, where dollars are bought and sold Monday through Friday.

So here we find McCain "flip-flopping" (remember that he originally was opposed to W''s" permanent tax cut proposal) and "pandering" (by telling people the popular, but irresponsible mantra, that he wants these tax cuts permanent).  This is not conservatism-- it's pseudo-conservatism.  But it's more than just a violation of a concept-- it's a violation of the American future. 

Jack Cafferty on CNN brought up an interesting point a short while back.  He mentioned that if another country was to intentionally destroy our infrastructure and purposely harm the value of our currency, we'd probably would be so incensed we might want to declare war on them.  Instead, we have them sitting in the White House and now running on the Republican ticket for President.  Not only is a true conservative of the likes of Barry Goldwater probably rolling over in his grave, he would have to be totally sickened by the party he loved acting in such an irresponsible way.  It seems that most modern Republicans wouldn't know a balanced budget if it stared them straight in the eyeballs.   

[metis]

Just a quick note.  It has become too time consuming for me to continue to dwell on politics.  The wife is not pleased that I'm spending too much time lately on my computer, and if Momma ain't happy, no one's happy around here.  So I promised her I'd back off a bit.  OK, more than just a "bit" (part of my problem is that I'm a very slow typist; several years ago I had a neck injury that left my left hand partially paralyzed, so I can only type with two fingers on the left-- try that some time and see what happens-- plus I never was that good a typist to start with).

Anyhow, I wanted to post this because you'll see me less posting on political stuff and, instead, spending more proportional time on religious stuff.  Therefore, I may not always have time to respond to the posts of others, but I'll do the best I can. 

However, there's one area of politics that I am forcing myself to be more open about, and that's dealing with various situations in the Middle East.  It's an area where I think I can probably contribute the most because of my background in that area, which I only rarely talk about (I'll explain briefly later today-- I hope-- in a thread in "Political" forum entitled "The Middle East"). 

[metis]

So I now realize why my BS detector has been going off for the last 24 hours, because of this thread full of BS.  At least I found the problem.

I'm assuming you're referring to what you just wrote.  Thanks for the "contribution".

[jacknky]

"He mentioned that if another country was to intentionally destroy our infrastructure and purposely harm the value of our currency, we'd probably would be so incensed we might want to declare war on them.  Instead, we have them sitting in the White House and now running on the Republican ticket for President.  Not only is a true conservative of the likes of Barry Goldwater probably rolling over in his grave, he would have to be totally sickened by the party he loved acting in such an irresponsible way.  It seems that most modern Republicans wouldn't know a balanced budget if it stared them straight in the eyeballs."

Wonderful anaylis, Metis. I too think the beginning of the end of true Conservatism, a Conservatism even we liberals could at least respect, was with Reagan. I think he showed his Freudian slip when he said that government isn't the solution, government is the problem. Basically since that time when we vote in a Republican we vote in someone who not only doesn't think government works but doesn't even want it to work. This thesis certainly explains why Clinton created a budget surplus (Government working) and Bush Jr. quickly turned that into a huge budget deficit (Gov't not working).

[Thorolf]

FWIW, Clinton never actually created a surplus. Smoke and mirrors...

As for Reagan - he was right. To the true conservative, the federal government is a bloated pig that simply is incapable and incompetent at the tasks it has taken on for itself. The Constitution outlines what the Federal government is for, and everything else is supposed to be reserved to the states. The closer to home the tasks are performed, the more likely they are to be performed efficiently and effectively.

But, Jack, you have to recognize that precious few Republicans today actually are particularly conservative. MORE conservative than the Democrats, perhaps, but not too many of them qualify as "conservative." Bush is hardly on the right wing of the party...

The reasons why Clinton's "surplus" isn't around today are myriad, but can be summed up with:

1) There was never actually a "surplus."
2) The war.
3) Natural disasters.
4) The war.
5) Unnatural disasters.
6) Economic downturn as a result, in part, of the late-Clinton crash of dot-coms.
7) Bush acting like a Democrat.
The war.
9) Democrats not actually doing anything but trying to win and keep jobs.
10) Republicans acting like Democrats.

[metis]

Darn!  There goes that pesky B.S. Detector again!  OK, what happened this time?  The "flip-flop mode" says it's Obama this time!  So now he's not going to take public financing after saying he would take it if McCain did.  Sorry, but I don't like that.

But wait a minute!  I didn't read the fine print, and I also just noticed that the "hypocrisy mode" also had gone off.  It appears that McCain did much the same during the primary process whereas he said he would operate out of public funding when he badly needed money, but then decided not to take it later after he secured the nomination.  Matter of fact, there are concerns he may have violated the law here and also with a possible misuse of his wife's corporate jet for campaign purposes.

Wow, I guess politicians often act like-- er, ah, politicians.

[metis]

FWIW, Clinton never actually created a surplus. Smoke and mirrors...

"Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[43] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.[44] Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years."-- from Wikipedia

"Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever."-- http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-26.htm


September 27, 2000
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."--  http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/


"Spending growth under George W. Bush has been almost four times as high as it was during the same period of Bill Clinton's presidency.  No two-term president in post-war U.S. history has ever presided over a spending binge this monumental in his first six years in office. ... If Bush had vowed when he took office to never spend more than Clinton planned to, then the budget office would be projecting a 10-year surplus of about $3.6 trillion, even assuming that all of the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.  Instead, based on Bush's proposed 2006 budget, we are looking at a 10-year deficit of $2.6 trillion. Tax cuts didn't cause the deficit. At best, they approximately paid for themselves. Spending is the true culprit. … From the education bill to the prescription drug benefit to the war on terror, spending has spun out of control.  If we want to put our fiscal house in order, we need to stop arguing over taxes and bring back the Clinton spending."-- http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/07/the_good_old_cl.html


"A review of the changes in the structural deficit since 1992 reveals much less impressive deficit reduction than does the conventional measure. When the effects of the business cycle upswing and special technical factors are accounted for, the deficit reduction due to policy changes outside of defense are nil. All of this policy improvement in the deficit situation results from cutting discretionary defense outlays below their nominal 1992 levels. Furthermore, all of the 1993 tax increase has been used to finance additional domestic and entitlement federal spending increases. Since 1995, the more recent progress in fiscal 1996 is due to faster than expected revenue growth and slower outlay growth, especially the savings due to Congressional actions to restrain spending. This more stringent approach to domestic discretionary appropriations by the new Congress has resulted in further progress on reducing the structural deficit in 1996."-- from the Joint Economic Committee Study-- http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm


"Today, President Clinton and Vice President Gore Announce An Historic Achievement: After Years of Escalating Deficits, The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Now Projects The Budget Surplus Will Reach $39 Billion This Year. The key findings of the OMB's Mid-Session Review of the 1999 budget are:

Instead of $357 Billion Deficit, $39 Billion Budget Surplus This Year. When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the deficit to be $357 billion this year and heading higher; now, the Administration projects the surplus to be $39 billion this year and growing bigger.

$39 Billion Surplus -- The First in A Generation. In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion -- the biggest dollar deficit in American history. This year, OMB now projects the surplus to be $39 billion -- the first in a generation (1969) and the biggest dollar surplus in American history. As a share of GDP, the budget surplus would be 0.5 percent this year -- the largest since 1957."-- http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/news/052698.html

 

[metis]

Wonderful anaylis, Metis. I too think the beginning of the end of true Conservatism, a Conservatism even we liberals could at least respect, was with Reagan. I think he showed his Freudian slip when he said that government isn't the solution, government is the problem. Basically since that time when we vote in a Republican we vote in someone who not only doesn't think government works but doesn't even want it to work. This thesis certainly explains why Clinton created a budget surplus (Government working) and Bush Jr. quickly turned that into a huge budget deficit (Gov't not working).

Thanks.  Part of the problem with the public's depiction with Reagan was that he talked a good game but didn't walk it in the area of economics.  For those old enough to remember those years, there were quite a few conservatives who were very angry with the "voodoo economics" of the Reagan administration.  He talked conservative, but didn't act like one. 

However, don't get me wrong, there are some things Reagan did that I do feel were quite on target, and that includes questioning and cutting some of the bureaucracy that often badly needed to be re-evaluated.  On top of that, putting additional military and economic pressure on the Soviets sped up their downfall.  I have often wished there would be a movie made of the conspiracy to bring Marxism down in the Soviet Union that involved Reagan, the Pope (JPII), and Lech Walesa.  It really worked well and, to me, that's probably Reagan's most effective long-term accomplishment as President.

[jacknky]

Thorolf,
"The closer to home the tasks are performed, the more likely they are to be performed efficiently and effectively."

Ol' Buddy, if you lived in Kentucky you might have to question that thesis. And I do question it. I don't see any more efficiency or effectiveness in state government than in the federal. What I do see in both cases is apathy and ignorance on the part of most citizens. On both the state and federal level we probably get the government we deserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons why Clinton's "surplus" isn't around today are myriad, but can be summed up with:

1) There was never actually a "surplus." (more so than now)
2) The war.
3) Natural disasters.
4) The war.
5) Unnatural disasters.
6) Economic downturn as a result, in part, of the late-Clinton crash of dot-coms.
7) Bush acting like a Democrat.
 The war.
9) Democrats not actually doing anything but trying to win and keep jobs.
10) Republicans acting like Democrats.

I read a study once where they compiled all the economic indicators under Republican and Democratic presidents to compare how the economy did under each party being in the White House. Across the board the economic indicators such as unemployment, GNP and so on were stronger under Democrats than Republicans. Perhaps the biggest strength of republicans is convincing the public that their economic policies work better.

I agree with you about the war causing a lot of the economic downturn. What could we have done with all those hundreds of billions of dollars? fixed social security? fixed Mediacre/Medicaid? subsidized fuel eddicient/alternative energy technologies?bult a few roads, schools? Hired more police?

[SquirleyWurley]

Some Democrats are more conservative fiscally than some Republicans, yes.

Some conservatives argue their principles differently, however.  Some prefer an ideology of small government to fiscal conservatism and efficiency and getting practical results which truly help society.  Others are more socially conservative and don't care about fiscal irresponsibility/inefficiency or other principles of small government or individualism.

Between Reagan and his congress, and Clinton and his congress, some important moves towards beurocracy cutting and financial conservativism were made, respectively.

[Thorolf]

Thorolf,
"The closer to home the tasks are performed, the more likely they are to be performed efficiently and effectively."

Ol' Buddy, if you lived in Kentucky you might have to question that thesis. And I do question it. I don't see any more efficiency or effectiveness in state government than in the federal. What I do see in both cases is apathy and ignorance on the part of most citizens. On both the state and federal level we probably get the government we deserve.

Perhaps, but it's not just a whim to say that the more local government is, they tend to be much more efficient and effective, as a general rule. There are always exceptions (*cough*Chicago*cough*Detroit*cough*), but considering just how INEFFICIENT and utterly INEFFECTIVE the federal government has always proven to be at running things like social programs, even those exceptions are typically markedly better...

I read a study once where they compiled all the economic indicators under Republican and Democratic presidents to compare how the economy did under each party being in the White House. Across the board the economic indicators such as unemployment, GNP and so on were stronger under Democrats than Republicans. Perhaps the biggest strength of republicans is convincing the public that their economic policies work better.

That conclusion is based on some pretty spotty information. But regardless, it doesn't really address what I said. 

I agree with you about the war causing a lot of the economic downturn. What could we have done with all those hundreds of billions of dollars? fixed social security? fixed Mediacre/Medicaid? subsidized fuel eddicient/alternative energy technologies?bult a few roads, schools? Hired more police?

I didn't say that the war caused any economic downturn.

And NONE of those things would be any different than they are right now.

NONE.

We would probably have a lower deficit... that's about the only thing that I think we can say with any confidence at all.

[jacknky]

Thorolf,
"I didn't say that the war caused any economic downturn.

And NONE of those things would be any different than they are right now.

NONE.

We would probably have a lower deficit... that's about the only thing that I think we can say with any confidence at all."

I disagree. What could we have done with the half trillion or so we've spent and continue to spend in Iraq? Would you like to start with rescuing Social Security? How about shoring up the levee systems along our rivers and seacoasts? I'm sure the folks along the Gulf and Mississippi would appreciate that and yes, those failings do affect our economy. Watch our food prices rise after the floods in the Mid-West.

The economic effects of the war may be hidden but they're there. You can't just throw away that much money and have no effect.

[SquirleyWurley]

Making Bush's tax cuts permanent, that's not obviously sound.

[metis]

The issue of tax cuts somehow propelling the economy forward is actually quite a canard.  On the surface it seems right: cut taxes, people spend more, and the economy moves forward.  But let's say that taxes are actually increased a bit.  What happens?  OK, I have less spending money so I buy less, but what happens to that money that was the result of the taxes collected?  Did it just disappear into thin air?  No.

Monies collected gets spent, and the vast majority of that goes into buying and producing goods or services, which also helps to stimulate the economy.  Matter of fact, that's actually more efficient than giving tax breaks to the wealthy since a poor person, for example, is more apt to spend his/her money domestically than a wealthy person may, since a poor person does not travel to Europe or invest in the Brazilian stock market by and large.