A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 11, 2006Promise Made, Promise Kept?Looks as if the doom and gloom projections about the budget deficit were way off. Bush promise: Cut the deficit in half during his second term. White House public goal: $260 billion by 2009. Old projection: $423 billion. Current projection for this year: $296 billion (-$127 billion), two years before the end of the second term. Although some very smart people are telling us to hold off on popping the corks, and probably rightly so, this is good news for an administration that obviously needs some. Those Republicans in Congress who predicted this would happen after the passage of the Bush tax cuts have got to be smiling. Whether or not the tax cuts are truly the reason for the welcomed news, perception is power, and this could take another issue away from the Democrats in 2006. With Francince Busby's loss in California, the obvious divisions of the Democratic Party being made painfully obvious due to coverage of the Connecticut Senate race, the death of Al-Zarkawi, the return of Karl Rove, the sound defeat of the deadline amendments in Congress, and now this, it seems the talk of a Democratic takeover has fizzled away for the time being. Posted by Starbucks Republican at July 11, 2006 10:51 AMComments
I don't accept that Bush has done this wonderful thing of halving the deficit, because he's halfing projections which may have been high-balled, rather than halfing an actual year-end deficit, and besides, there were no deficits when he took office. But the larger point is true. The Republicans can feel less panic, given that the economy seems to be performing well despite high gas prices. By the time the 2006 election rolls around, people will have had time to at least partially adjust to the price of gas, and they'll have newer issues to be outraged about. Furthermore, even if tax cuts were responsible for something good happening, there is still the question of how the tax cuts are allocated. It is my belief that tax cuts for working people, besides being more equitable, might be more stimulatory that tax cuts for the affluent. Also, outrage over corruption is likely to fade a bit by November. Posted by: Rick at July 11, 2006 12:11 PMAn almost $300 billion deficit is the sort of "good' news that I can live without, like when people counsel maimed accident victims that they should feel lucky to be alive. I am unconsoled that the biggest pessimists were off target. As unconsoled as most crippled accident victims are when their "luck" consists solely of not dying. Let's set aside the spin and glare at the obvious. What's "way off?" I'll tell you what's way off. The amount that the governmnet collects is way off from the amount that it spends. I'm not interested in declaring that the deficit is the president's fault. All of congress shares the blame. My point? No celebrating anything but balance and long-term solvency. It doesn't seem like anyone will conclusively establish whether and when given tax cuts hurt or help. But we know that lots of Americans look askance at tax cuts when there's a big deficit and the cuts seem to benefit wealthy individuals. IMO, that makes sense. It's past time for partisans of both sides to stop hiding behind the debate over the merits of tax cuts and face the chasm. Touch the 3rd rail, and find lots more cuts in spending. Posted by: bk at July 11, 2006 12:22 PMSS and Medicare. Big picture bad. Enjoy the current deficit while you can. Posted by: WHQ at July 11, 2006 12:38 PMI don't accept that Bush has done this wonderful thing of halving the deficit, because he's halfing projections which may have been high-balled, rather than halfing an actual year-end deficit, and besides, there were no deficits when he took office. Beg to differ enormously, because the "forward" projections of revenue from the late 90's and 2000 were themselves grossly exaggerated and mistaken by being based on unsustainable revenue growth from the stock bubble, but they drove the spending bills that in turn drove that deficit. As did 9/11. Clinton (and everyone else who paid attention) knew we were heading into a hefty recession when the bubble burst, and 9/11 made it worse. Whoever won in 2000 was going to have that recession on their hands, complete to follow-up punch. In short (because I'm time-pressed) deficits in 2001 and beyond were inevitable before Bush took office. They were deeply exacerbated by 9/11 and war spending, but they would have been there nonetheless. The tax cuts didn't impact the federal budget until the 2003 collections year, at which point revenues turned sharply upward as the economy recovered from the twin hits of the recession and 9/11. How much of the recovery is due to the tax cuts is certainly debateable, and even the experts will disagree. That the tax cuts helped stimulate the recovery and thus helped reduce the deficits is not. Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2006 12:39 PMthis may sound ridiculous, but how does the deficit affect the economy? From what I've heard, today's deficit runs only 2-4% of the nation's GDP. Under Reagan, it was 6%. Posted by: Rachel at July 11, 2006 12:50 PMThat the tax cuts helped stimulate the recovery and thus helped reduce the deficits is not. How can this not be debateable if the following is true? How much of the recovery is due to the tax cuts is certainly debateable, and even the experts will disagree. Wouldn't the recovery have to be due to the tax cuts to a certain degree for there to be enough tax-cut-induced growth to overcome the lower tax rates? The difference between knowing there IS a stimulus effect, and knowing the exact amount of stimulus produced, WHQ. Axiomatic. Don't fall into the simplistic trap of believing that things have single causes hwen the factors are multiple. The economy was going to begin to recover eventually--lowering taxes sped that up, and increased the growth rate. How much it sped it up and increased it is the debateable part. That it did so is not. Saying that ALL of the recovery is due to tax cuts is a moronic claim. Claiming that NONE of the recovery is due to tax cuts is likewise moronic. Rachel, the main effects of deficits on GDP growth are through inflation and interest rates. Deficits tend to boost both. Higher rates of either, in any degree, have a retardant effect on growth. Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2006 01:05 PMOh, and I'd once again throw in the notice that Congress controls spending. I don't give Bush credit for doing so, only for the exercise of moral suasion in convincing Congress. Bottom line is that when it comes to the budget, it's COngress first and last. The White House will always be the goat or hero, depending, but the budget power is in Congress. Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2006 01:07 PMThe difference between knowing there IS a stimulus effect, and knowing the exact amount of stimulus produced, WHQ. Axiomatic. That doesn't quite cover it. I can agree without question that there IS a "stimulus effect", assuming that a "stimulus effect" means economic growth due to tax cuts, aside from any other growth due to other factors. But let's say, simplistically, that I reduce the tax rate to 95% of what it was. That reduction results in 3% economic growth. Now my revenues are .95 * 1.03, or .9875, of what they would have otherwise been, even given other factors if the 3% only included that portion of the change in the economy due to the tax cut. Folks, All of this talk is academic. Unless the numbers are fraudulent, it doesn't matter how the deficit is shrinking or why, it happened on Bush's watch, and he'll get the credit for, the **stard. Posted by: Cavalier829 at July 11, 2006 01:37 PMIf you look at the charts I posted over at Stubborn Facts, you'll see precisely the point Tully made. Tax revenues fell between 2000 and 2001 exactly at the time that GDP growth fell from about 6% down to just over 3%. GDP growth picked up again in 2003, and tax revenues began increasing in 2004, and are now back up to the point they they were at their previous all-time high in 2000. By the way, Rick, I don't recall hearing anybody except Republican defenders of the President saying, when they were predicting doom and gloom as a consequence of the Bush tax cuts, that the deficit projections "may have ben high-balled". It's hardly appropriate, now that we see pretty dramatic evidence that tax RATE cuts can lead to tax REVENUE increases, to change the rules of the game and pretend that an important issue before (the projected deficits) really wasn't as important as the critics made it out to be. Let's stick to the same rules for the whole game, ok? Posted by: PatHMV at July 11, 2006 01:40 PMI'm not opposed to the idea that tax rate cuts can result in increases in tax revenue because of growth. But there is no dramatic evidence that this happened. You can't assume that the revenue growth would not have occurred without the tax rate cuts, or that revenues are higher than they would have been without the tax rate cuts. And this goes both ways. You can reduce the tax rate and revenues can go down, but they might have gone down even further without the rate cuts because the rate cuts might have reduced the effects of a recession. You can increase the tax rates and have revenues go up, but possibly less than they would have if you had left the rates unchanged or reduced them. It's not a matter of revenues being more or less than they once were. It's a matter of revenues being more or less at some given time than they otherwise would have been at that same given time. And you can't know that. Posted by: WHQ at July 11, 2006 02:14 PMWHQ, whether or not tax cuts result in immediate government revenue growth is NOT the same thing as saying that tax cuts unambiguously stimulate GDP. If you don't know the difference there's no point in talking to you about it, and if you do, you're doing an end run around what I actually said, which would be disingenuous. Since you seem to have missed it, write this down for future reference--the deficits were there before the tax cuts took effect. Got that part? At that time, we were already in a recession, which by definition means there was zero GDP growth, maybe even shrinkage. Got that part? A recession means that government tax revenues will shrink--as they did. Got that part? None of that has any effect at all on government spending, which continues to grow merrily along, indifferent to the fluctuations of revenue sources. Got that part? That takes us up to the end of 2002, with the 2002 damage reflected in the 2003 collections year. On January 1, 2003 the first of the EGTRRA cuts took effect, and the cuts were accelerated in the spring as an economic stimulus. The effect of those cuts were felt immediately in GDP, which began to rise at an increased rate, but would not be felt in tax collections until the 2004 collections year, as by definition collections lag rates by a year. And in 2004, tax revenues rose and continued to rise, with revenues rising faster than GDP. They still continue to rise faster than GDP--approximately twice as fast. Thus, deficits are shrinking faster than projected. The time proximity of both GDP growth rate increases and revenue increases began at the same time as the tax cuts. The exact amount of that growth and revenue increase that can be attributed to the tax cuts is debateable, as it's by no means the only factor involved. But that at least some of that growth is due to the tax cuts is not. Conversely, those who say that had we kept higher rates in place the government would have collected more money than they did and that deficits would therefore be less are making the opposite argument, and that's also extremely debateable, as spending never slowed. What is nondebateable is that had tax rates not been cut, GDP recovery and growth (and ther esulting tax revenues) would have been lower and slower. WIhout the rate cuts, government might be less in debt, but the overall economy would be worse off. Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2006 03:21 PMWhen Bush launched his cut the deficit in half it was at 412 Billion. $289 billion or more (remember Iraq?) is not much of a move considering the tax cuts in a time of war are still advocated to stimulate the economy while the fed is trying to slow things down by raising interest rates (!?!?!?!) Pat - 2 words - business cycle. Until someone can definitivly come out with a study that takes all that into account I don't see giving all credit to tax cuts that to this date have led to substandard job growth and some of the lowest Government revenue as percentage of GDP since the 50's. Todays's deficit 8,317,832,000,000. As for bragging rights, the 4th largest deficit in history is still the 4th largest deficit in history. # 5 Apparently belongs to his dad in 1992. Contrast that to the 284 billion budget surplus at the end of Clinton's term. We're still borrowing about a billion a day which will produce pressures to increase bond interest rates. We have a net 3 Trillion dollar debt to the world, the purchasing power of the US dollar is dropping which increase our costs even more when purchasing raw materials and manufactured goods from other countries.
Bizarro world, we are here. Posted by: Marcus at July 11, 2006 03:22 PMAn almost $300 billion deficit is the sort of "good' news that I can live withoutI agree; a "few more victories like this will be the end of us," said King Phyrrus.Posted by: Simon at July 11, 2006 03:27 PM Speaking of fizzle, secrets leaker Bob Novak notes: That's not fizzle, that's sizzzzzzle, like sweet videlia onions on the grill with a grass fed london broil....mmmmmmmmm Posted by: Marcus at July 11, 2006 03:28 PMOh, and I'd once again throw in the notice that Congress controls spending.Not lately they haven't, Tully. ;) Better to phrase it that spending is under Congress; authority than under anyone's control... Posted by: Simon at July 11, 2006 03:30 PM Marcus, Tully, Don't type angry. I'm not being disingenuous and do understand the difference between economic stimulus and changes in tax revenues. I'm not sure what I wrote that would make you think otherwise. WHQ, whether or not tax cuts result in immediate government revenue growth is NOT the same thing as saying that tax cuts unambiguously stimulate GDP. Right. Which is what I was getting at here. I can agree without question that there IS a "stimulus effect", assuming that a "stimulus effect" means economic growth due to tax cuts, aside from any other growth due to other factors. I'm not even trying to define what the effects of the tax cuts have been. I'm simply disputing that there is some kind of proof that revenues went up because of the tax cuts. They certainly may have, but there is no proof of it. I don't really have an axe to grind here. I love the idea that reducing tax rates can increase revenues (by stimulating economic growth, which I understand is not the same thing). But thanks for the outrage and condescension. BTW, not everything I write is in direct response to you personally. Posted by: WHQ at July 11, 2006 03:54 PMSimon, A net wash or 1R+ in the Senate? Pretty bold. Posted by: Cavalier829 at July 11, 2006 03:55 PMYeah Tully I was a little surprised at how you figuratively jumped down WHQ's throat. I'm also wondering how you can be so sure that the tax cuts must have stimulated either revenue or GDP growth. Since either of these can grow without tax cuts, when they do grow in correspondence with tax cuts, how do we KNOW that the growth is due to tax cuts? How do we know that the correlation indicates causation? You seem to feel prettty strongly that its awfully clear, but I must've missed the part where you explained why. At least in this thread. Posted by: bk at July 11, 2006 04:42 PMTo be clear, my initial post following Tully's was in direct response to this: How much of the recovery is due to the tax cuts is certainly debateable, and even the experts will disagree. That the tax cuts helped stimulate the recovery and thus helped reduce the deficits is not. The bold text indicated to me that Tully was asserting that revenues rose, not just GDP, in response to the tax rate cuts, undisputably. Thus my 7th grade math example showing GDP growth with revenue reduction as the result of tax rate cuts. My later post was in response to Pat's assertion of dramatic evidence of revenue growth resulting from tax rate cuts. Posted by: WHQ at July 11, 2006 04:53 PMWHQ--yep, I'm downright cranky today. Partly because I've walked through this at least a half-dozen times here, and get tired of repeating it. I apologize to you. Simon, what's that piece of paper you keep talking about, the one with all those amendments at the back end? What does it say about spending and taxes and where they come from? :-) WHQ, I know without a doubt that had tax rates not been cut, the dot.com/9-11 recession would have been longer and perhaps deeper, that GDP and tax revenues would not be rising as fast as they have been, that the economy today would be smaller and less healthy. I know from the historical record that spending rises regardless of revenues, but that it rises slower in times of deficit than in times of surplus. Deficits would not at all necessarily have been lower had rates not been cut. You are correct that we cannot quantify that which did not occur, and that it is often difficult to quantify that which did. But it is also incorrect of those crying down the effects of tax cuts to make the claims they do--they are assuming an opposite case, one even more full of uncertainties as what they argue against, and containing some outright falsehoods. What is certain is that had tax rates not been cut, the dot.com/9-11 recession would have been longer and perhaps deeper, that GDP and tax revenues would not be rising nearly as fast as they have been, that the economy would be smaller and less healthy. I'm also wondering how you can be so sure that the tax cuts must have stimulated either revenue or GDP growth. Brian, in this case causation with GDP growth is copiously proven. As is the causal relationship of GDP growth with revenue growth. The only thing up for debate is the degree of that correlation. What is not certain is that the degree of revenue growth is enough to offset the revenue loss of the cut on a time-value basis--it didn't happen, so it can't be measured, and primary and secondary and tertiary effects heterodyne each other, so the "what if" can't be reliably predicted. But without the cuts we'd now have a smaller and less healthy economy, both tax revenues and GDP would be growing at a slower rate (if from different baselines, better for one and worse for the other), and government spending would not have been less and may have been more. It does not follow that deficits would be less. That depends on things that did not happen. Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2006 05:11 PMAnd to repeat, WHQ. That tax cuts boosted the recovery and subsequent GDP growth is indisputable, based on empirical economics, evidence running back decades if not centuries. It is therefore definitionally impossible for that GDP stimulus to NOT be a part of the increasing tax revenues, as they are a direct if non-linear function of GDP growth, and thus also be key to both revenues and GDP rising faster than they otherwise would have. What is debateable is the exact degree of that effect, and the comparitive benifit or detriment in terms of government revenue only of effect as relates to the hypothetical path not taken, which itself cannot be reliably predicted. Note that deficits are a function of BOTH spending and revenue. Any analysis that ignores spending really has little to say about deficits. But that the tax cuts are contributing to the currently rising revenues via GDP growth is indisputable. Lower taxes means higher GDP growth. Period. GDP growth is higher than it would have been had taxes not been cut. Period. GDP growth means rising tax revenues. (Not quite period--the "breakeven" is a function of several factors, and is not usually 0% but a touch over.) Faster GDP growth means faster tax revenue growth. Period. Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2006 05:47 PMI can't stay mad at you, ya big lug. Apology accepted. Posted by: WHQ at July 11, 2006 06:32 PMNow that I have all of you interested in federal budget deficits (debating the cause of the reduction but in agreement that increasing deficits are a problem) can I now ask you to look at the REAL middle and long-term problem: MEDICARE. FIX IT IN 10-15 YEARS OR SUFFER SEVERE BUDGET DEFICITS OR DRACONIAN HEALTH CARE CUTS....FOR BABY BOOMERS NO LESS!!!!! Posted by: c3 at July 11, 2006 10:05 PMLet's take a look at what the WHITE HOUSE has to say about the tax cuts' economic effects David Wessell, Washington Wire, hat tip to Brad DeLong, one unhappy economist today. Here's what Mr Wessell has to say. The WHITE HOUSE says the result of tax cuts BY 2016 MAY have been a 0.7% increase in GDP (remember, that's THEIR figures). That would've come out to a gain in tax revenue of roughly $29B. But the cost of this in 2016 will be $314B. That's a 90% loss. There's surely a reason the White House likes to talk about 2016 - gives the result time to have biggest dollar effect. Anybody think the boost is anything so, er, big, this year? My guess is that the post-9/11 cuts had a slight but real speeding-up effect on the economy, but the tax cuts since then have probably had very little effect except to raise deficits. E.g., the deficit would be noticeably lower still without them. > Note that deficits are a function of BOTH spending and revenue. . . . that the Yeah, marginally. But the 28-year record of red ink from supply-side policies says pretty clearly that, in an economy with well under 50% taxation, surplus and deficit figures are primarily driven by spending and business cycles, and only tertiarily from tax cuts. In fact, so do those White House figures. Posted by: Jon Kay at July 12, 2006 01:59 AM That's not fizzle, that's sizzzzzzle, like sweet videlia onions on the grill with a grass fed london broil....mmmmmmmmm doesn't diddly if they act like the Republicans. Whoever wins, it will have to be a wait and see what they do, not what we expect them to do. what concerns me about a Democratic win is that instead of moving forward (making a real plan for Iraq, correcting budget concerns, making a real plan for America in general), they will be nothing more than a Star Chamber (or name your favorite prosecuting group) to the Bush Admin. Rachel, it will be a white elephant for them ... The really interesting thing about the prospect of Democrats recapturing the House is sudden increase in the chance of a fatal rupture between the incompatible visions of the base vs. the civilized parts of the party. Consider: what are the peculiar tools of the House? Appropriation and impeachment. The dem base favors a taxation policy which simply doesn't play in America any more; the party will be forced to appease the base and alienate voters for 2008, or else risk a damaging revolt. Worse yet is the impeachment power: suddenly armed with the impeachment power, the dems will no longer be able to straddle the gap between their base, which will desert them if they don't impeach Bush, and decent society, which will desert them if they do.Worse yet (for the dems, that is), just as winning the House will hurt them, it may well help the GOP to an even greater degree: [B]oth the shock of losing the House and the demise of the GOP legislative agenda (such as one still exists at this point) to the ensuing gridlock with that Democratic-controlled House are likely to re-invigorate the GOP base for 2008, which will have knock-on effects for both the Presidential election and House races ... [A] two year period in the minority would also shake up the GOP and may bring them back to the agenda they were elected to put in place when they take back control in '08 following the [probable] Democratic meltdown.In essense, I think that two years of the House in Dem hands, will help recenter the GOP and do grave injury to the Democrats. On a non-partisan level, I also think it offers that once-in-a-generation chance to pass term limits (the window for such a reform is two to three years: the first Congress after a change in control, and potentially an extra year ahead of a party losing control if it's readily apparent they're going to). So I can live with two years of Speaker Hoyer (why Speaker Hoyer? Because nothing on Earth will convince me that the Dems really are dumb enough to give the GOP a gift like "Speaker Pelosi"), not because I'm convinced that they'll bungle it, but because I think there are structural forces at work here that ensure they cannot NOT bungle it. Posted by: Simon at July 12, 2006 09:13 AM Jon, most of the analysis you cite is not from the White House, but from "The Center for Budget Policies and Priorities", which, as the article notes, is "distinctly unfriendly to Bush fiscal policies." They take one number from the Treasury long-run analysis and plug it into their own assumptions to make the claim you're spinning here. Posted by: PatHMV at July 12, 2006 09:14 AMJon, thank you very much for the opportunity to demonstrate the blatantly dishonest use of selective citation, and to cite the original material, and provide direct links to same. Your "source" is an extremely selective citation from the anti-admin anti-tax-cut CBPP. Which said citation they are extremely careful to NOT link back to source documents, or cite in context. The figure cited by CBPP is derived from an internal Treasury model of Treasury's own design that is not available in particulars, and is by their own statements partial and limited. CBPP is extremely misleading in their use of of the citation. Your regurgitation of it is even worse, as you step past misleading into outright lie, if perhaps unintentionally. I am looking at both the CBPP propaganda press release and the original source document [pdf] you are citing via them, the one CBPP quite pointedly did NOT link to. Gee, one would almost think CBPP did not want anyone to read their citation in context. You state: The WHITE HOUSE says the result of tax cuts BY 2016 MAY have been a 0.7% increase in GDP (remember, that's THEIR figures). That's a flat-out lie. The report does not say that. Even CBPP in their weasel-wording does not say that, though that's certainly the impression they wanted to give. What the report actually says is that using a limited-reliability limited-factor model of their own design, Treasury estimated that the additonal GDP effect of making the cuts permanent in 2010 will produce an additional long-range boost of GDP on the order of 0.7%. That is over and above the already-existing immediate short-term and intermediate effects, and reflects ONLY the additional marginal long-range effect of that one single action, the "bonus" over and above effects on top of the already produced increased baseline effects. It does NOT reflect the previous and cumulative effects of the immediate and intermediate stimulus effects. And they are very very careful to state that the uncertainties and assumptions of their limited model make it difficult to estimate the long-term effects of that one action precisely. Here's what Treasury, using one of the best standard commercial macro models available, said about the immediate short-term effects of the assorted financial stimuli, in the very same "box" of the report that CBPP and you mis-cite, the one they didn't want to link to: In this analysis, the Treasury Department used the Macroeconomic Advisers macro-econometric model to estimate how the economy would have performed had there been no fiscal stimulus from 2001 through 2004. This analysis found that: (1) by the second quarter of 2003, the economy would have created as many as 1.5 million fewer jobs and GDP would have been as much as 2 percent lower, and (2) by the end of 2004, the economy would have created as many as 3 million fewer jobs and real GDP would be as much as 3.5 to 4.0 percent lower. THAT'S what CBPP did NOT want anyone to see, as it cuts the cojones off of their agitprop piece with a rusty dull knife. Using one of the best models out there, Treasury found that the tax cuts passed in 2001 and taking effect 1/1/2003 produced 3 million jobs and increased GDP by 3.5-4% in two years, as compared to NOT cutting taxes. They quite rightly do not carry forward any analytical claims into the intermediate period. This is appropriate because, as I have repeatedly emphasized, once past the immediate effect the secondary and tertiary effects and so on make it difficult to make any such statements with reliability. But beginning 1/1/2005, the economy was moving forward from a GDP baseline four points higher and 3 million jobs stronger than it would have without the tax cuts. I note that such boosts are cumulative and ongoing, like compound interest. Once incorporated into the economy, that additional baseline continues to produce ongoing positive growth effects. You will find that this comports exactly with my other statements above. WHQ--see why I get cranky? :-) Posted by: Tully at July 12, 2006 10:06 AMJon, I see that I have implied that YOU were intentionally misrepresenting the Treasury report. My apologies for that--I do not believe that. I think you read what CBPP said, and took away from it the very impression they were trying so hard to produce with their dishonest and misleading agitprop. Posted by: Tully at July 12, 2006 10:22 AMI still don't get it. At least not when the claim is made in such a way as to suggest that tax cuts will always boost gdp. Doesn't it depend at all on the TYPE of tax cut?
I guess the problem for me is I don't really understand what GDP is measuring, or what "the economy" is. I understand in a vague and pragmatic sense, even in a general theoretical sense, but not truly. How do we decide what gets counted and what doesn't, and what sorts of arbitrary decisions and uneasy compromises go into deciding what to count and what to multiply and what to square and what to subtract and what to divide? Posted by: bk at July 12, 2006 10:28 AMSkipping a full course on national-income economics theory (I don't have the time and no one's paying me) it's still pretty simple. The private sector consumes and invests more productively and efficiently than government does. The private sector is market-oriented, the government sector is consumption and control oriented. The government produces economic profits only by happenstance, and economic profits are what drives GDP growth. At best, government re-allocates resources from more productive producers to less productive ones in the pursuit of the government's agendas. That means less economic profits produced, which means lower GDP than if the resources stay in the market-oriented (profit maximizing) private sector. And, like compound interest, economic growth is cumulative and self-reinforcing. Posted by: Tully at July 12, 2006 11:03 AMWhat should be a trivial insight re GD,: it makes no comment about the quality of the given private versus government endeavor. GDP doesn't measure/give value to anything that doesn't have a dollar sign attached to it. Economists try, of course, with mixed success. Not trying to extend a fight here. just pointing out that it's always worthwhile to take a step back and think about the relative merits of worshipping consumption and continual growth. Even if one concedes the merits of such, one still has to acknowledge that continual consumption and growth bring challenges with them. One more trivial insight, re this: The private sector consumes and invests more productively and efficiently than government does. So far, this seems to be generally true, at least to me. Must it and will it always be so? Perhaps. We'll have to see. It's an interesting idea to consider in the context, of say, healthcare. With costs rising at such a high rate, presumedly such cost increases are related to the growth of GDP. Buit that doesn';t say anything about how individual resources are being allocated and re-allocated. After all, how many of us are consoled by GDP growth if it brings about a reallocation of resources in which we have fewer, or even relatively fewer? GDP can grow, but who is better off? That's a far more important question for each individual American, IMO. Presumedly, at least in theory, overall GDP can grow, and per capita GDP will rise, but this CAN happen in a context where fewer than half of the people are actually better off. Posted by: bk at July 12, 2006 01:05 PMIncome distribution is a completely different subject. In any case, those are class warfare arguments, not economic ones. But 3 million new jobs suggests in this case that the benefits are not exactly concentrated on the wealthy. GDP doesn't measure/give value to anything that doesn't have a dollar sign attached to it. GDP doesn't "give value" to anything, Brian. It's a standardized measurement of national economic activity. If you have a superior standardized measure of economic activity that doesn't use the standard unit of measure--dollars--then there's a Nobel prize waiting for you to go claim. It's not a perfect measure--there are very few of those outside of the hard sciences--but it's a pretty darn good one. The main thing that is not reflected directly in GDP is the underground (cash) economy, but that IS indirectly refelected in overall economic activity and does end up in the totals. The money comes back into the chain at some point, and is then measurable, just not by direct sector generation. Posted by: Tully at July 12, 2006 01:59 PMRight, Tully. I'm just pointing out the obvious. My point is simply that even if the relationship between tax cuts and GDP growth is strong, this doesn't mean that all decisions about tax cuts should be made solely or primarily on this basis. In other words, it's not proof that all tax cuts are "good" or that increasing GDP is the end all and be all of human endeavor. I don't think that's especially controversial. So for example, in the case of, say healthcare. Am I on target in guessing that with healthcare being conducted by private entities and prices rising, this trend contributes to GDP growth? Healthcare companies are making lots of money selling their product, and that contributes to GDP growth. But many people don't seem to be enjoying that particular growth, at least not the rising cost part of it, even if they ARE enjoying the "longer lifespan" part of it. GDP doesn't "give value" to anything, Brian. It's a standardized measurement of national economic activity. Tully, I just meant that when you measure something, you assign a value to it. That's why I said "measure/give value." What that means more precisely varies from case to case. For example, if I am measuring something like height, then I'm not giving value because the distance is a fixed quantity. With money it's almost a difference in kind because the "value" it assigns is so much more malleable. You always tend towards eruption when I suggest that economic value is substantially imaginary, maybe because when I do so I'm in that rare spot of being a heretic in your church. or maybe it's that imaginary is a little bit too fanciful. I don't mean imaginary in the sense that it doesn't really exisit, I mean imaginary in the sense that it exists in our minds. (Maybe ONLY in our minds, mayb not. Not worth spattying over. IMO) Economic value is determined by a market consensus, the some total of our views. Such value is subject to quick and substantial re-evaluation, based onloy on changing views regarding what people think. Very often, that's tied to real world facts, like, say, the spring weather in Florida or the unstable government in . But sometimes its more visceral than that. I'm pretty sure you disdain this whole line of thinking, or believe it matters not a whit, or both. Or that it's not factorable into any useful real-world thinking 99.99% of the time. So I won't go on. But IMO, it's worth being aware of...I don't think GDP is as "standardized" as you do. But obviously it's relatively standardized, which in the real world is the best we can do. At least so far. :-) Posted by: bk at July 12, 2006 02:50 PMMy point is simply that even if the relationship between tax cuts and GDP growth is strong, this doesn't mean that all decisions about tax cuts should be made solely or primarily on this basis. LOL. You're upset I stayed on topic? If you wish to advocate tax cuts or increases based on your attraction to the color blue, please, go right ahead. But when analyzing the monetary effects of monetary shifts one is perforce confined to doing so in terms of money. Do the EGTRRA tax cuts "pay for themselves" to the government in net-sum terms of government revenue? That's the claim of the hardcore supply-siders, one carefully avoided in the White House statements. I don't know, and it'll be years before there's enough data to make a good guess. Claims otherwise at this point, either direction, are not facts but opinions. Do the EGTRRA tax cuts pay for themselves in terms of demonstrable gains for the economy as a whole? You betcha. Absolutely. Unequivocally. No doubt at all. The amount of old resources conserved and new resources generated is greater than the amount of government revenue foregone. How much greater, figured on a time-value basis of continuing effects versus the alternate path and its continuing effects, is quite debateable. Answer that one and you can take a stab at the first question. You always tend towards eruption when I suggest that economic value is substantially imaginary, maybe because when I do so I'm in that rare spot of being a heretic in your church. Absolutely not. Value is indeed relative (which was one of the places Marx managed to really screw up, insisting on value as an absolute). But the standardized measurements are not relative. They use real standardized units that represent real resources that are used for real things in the real world. As such, they're as good as it gets without lettiing the government do it all for us. "Values" may shift for any given item, but the overall sum of the values is still measurable, because we have standardized the unit of account. You might want to study up on the natures and uses of money. Yes, those are plurals. Posted by: Tully at July 12, 2006 04:03 PMWhoops! Got caught that time. That'll teach me to just accept a partisan stat. But even with that decidedly optimistic 4%, the tax-cut is a money-loser gov't-revenue-wise. 4% out of the 2005 receipts, which I projected back to 2.04T from the document, that'd be a return of $81B for the $200Bish (I could only find this year's tax cost of $211B, I'm guessing it was sligtly smaller then) spent. That's an almost -60% return on investment. > Here's what Treasury, using one of the best standard commercial macro models available, Uh, huh. I gotta wonder if the package properly dealt with the costs of the cut. This entire tax package was financed by bonds, from the same global investment pool as the private economy. Except you lose the bond return rate. Back in 2002, it was a special situation. You had a crisis. Nobody would put money in the stock market anyway. Now it's all different. Looks like a clear lose now. Brian: Tully's right that money is probably more productive in private hands. And there is an argument to be made for concentrating tax cuts on the wealthy - they invest a larger portion of their income, so you see a larger economic improvement for your tax cut dollar. Except under the GOP, the share of public spending is at least as high. When you're running a deficit, it's not a choice between public and private, it's whether using loans to finance tax cuts makes sense. Some interesting #s collected: 2001 GDP - $10,128B What Was the GDP Then? - http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/ Posted by: Jon Kay at July 12, 2006 07:06 PMBut even with that decidedly optimistic 4%, the tax-cut is a money-loser gov't-revenue-wise. 4% out of the 2005 receipts, which I projected back to 2.04T from the document, that'd be a return of $81B for the $200Bish (I could only find this year's tax cost of $211B, I'm guessing it was sligtly smaller then) spent. That's an almost -60% return on investment. Do you really want me fisking over everything that you screwed up there in your envelope-back calculations, Jon? What the heck--you stuck it out there, so I'll slap it around a bit. Maybe someone will learn something useful, if only the complexity of real world econ versus the ranting-head model of armchair quarterbacks. ACTUAL revenues in 2003, for 2002 revenues taxed and collected under the Clinton-era rates, were $1.783 trillion. Collections under the lower EGTRRA rates (which are phased in, not hitting all at once) in 2004 were $1.880T, an increase of $97B from the 2003 Clinton-rate baseline. In 2005 they were $2.154T, an increase of $371B from 2003 baseline. Projected revenues for 2006 are $2.4T, an increase of $617B from 2003 baseline. That's a total "profit" of $1.085T since the 2003 baseline in increased revenue collections, in three years, versus a hypothetical total NON-time-value adjusted "cost" to government of $1.2T over ten years. And those cut-boosted baselines keep "returning on investment" incrementally on into the future. Of course, that's also an over-simplistic take. What's debateable is how much of that revenue increase is due solely to the tax cuts. It's fairly easy to figure out overall GDP and job stimulus effect, but figuring out the "revenue return" on each and every one of the different tax changes and all their secondary and tertiary effects requires too many assumptions. So we can talk about the known stimulus effects, but linking it back to exact quantified revenue changes is enormously more difficult. Your "envelope analysis" is completely nonsensical. (Really, you shouldn't try this at home. At least not without a net.) BTW, there's nothing "decidedly optimistic" about that 3.5-4%. If anything, it may be an understatement. Also BTW (and this bit's important!) GDP growth and tax revenues are NOT unit elastic* or even remotely close (which is part of the measurement problem), except at the inflection points. If GDP goes up 5%, tax revenues go up much more than 5%. GDP went up 4.2% in 2004, but the resulting tax revenues rose by almost 15%. Conversely, if GDP stays static or falls, tax revenues shrink at much more than a 1 to 1 ratio. The inflection point there is NOT at 0% GDP growth. It's somewhere between 2% and 2.5% GDP growth. Grow at a slower rate than the inflection-point rate, and tax revenues fall. This is clearly seen in the figures for, say, 2001, when overall GDP rose only 0.8% but the resultant revenues (collected in 2002) shrank by almost 7%. So if the tax cuts result in an extra 1% annually of GDP growth, that translates into much more than a 1% incremental increase in tax revenues. Throwing a bit more grist on the mill, to honestly assess the "return to government" of the tax cuts, we should include the increased collections at local and state levels resutling from the GDP growth and job creation. They too are "government" and are benefitting directly, and without even changing their tax rates. Indeed, most states allow federal taxes as a deduction, so reduced federal taxation results automatically in increased state collections, even without the stimulus effects. Checked out what's happening with state income tax collections lately? (Skyrocketing.) [*--"unit elastic": refers to cross-correlated rates of change. Related variables that change together at a one to one ratio are displaying unit elasticity.] Posted by: Tully at July 12, 2006 08:25 PMTully, begging forgiveness, can I prevail upon you for another answer? When the price of gas went from about $1.75 to $3.00+ over the last year and change (or whatever time period), did this make the GDP go up, or did it have no real effect? I'm sure the answer is more complicated the two posiibilities I pose, but what I am drivigng at it this...is the GDP measuring the products, or the value of the products? If it's the latter, then inflation is "good" from a GDP point of view (disregarding for the sake of the question negative ripples subsequent to the price rise). Now it makes sense to me that if you wanted to measure the products, you'd try to factor inflation out. But if you tried to do that, then you're on the horns of "how do you really measure inflation?" Ir's sort of like the movie popularity stats we get treated to, that say movie x had the biggest opening ever, but it's in terms of box office receipts, when we know that popularity is probably better measured in terms of arses in seats, at least for comparative purposes. I've been making a lot of assumptions in this thread, but here's another. I'm going to assume that economists are generally too smart to fall for the box office receipts numbers, and are going to insist on counting cracks. Simple in the case of moviegoers, much harder in the case of counting the entire range of good and services. Posted by: bk at July 13, 2006 08:05 AMWhen the price of gas went from about $1.75 to $3.00+ over the last year and change (or whatever time period), did this make the GDP go up, or did it have no real effect? Yes and no, and not directly. [1] It increases the nominal cost of production inputs, and so increases nominal GDP. But it does not directly increase real (inflation-adjusted) GDP. I have used real GDP above to keep things simpler. [2] On the other side, inflation itself has some effect on GDP growth as a function of investment risk and uncertainty. Which would require a small chapter on the risk components of interest rates and investor's "required" market returns. Simply put, the higher the level of persistent inflation, the greater the "risk premium" as a portion of return demanded by investors. Ok. Makes sense. I have another question which you may not be able to answer...your answer came from the theory side, as it were..GDP adjusts for inflation, so no, inflation doesn't affect real GDP. But what about from the applied side or thwe other direction. Is there any correlation between real GDP and the rate of inflation, even though its "adjusted out?" [If so, it might suggest that there's a "real" inflation that's different from the amount of adjustment made using some rubric-based measurement of some market basket or whatever. Sorry to be a labor Tully. Tell me to take a class if you want. I'll understand. Posted by: bk at July 13, 2006 12:24 PMIs there any correlation between real GDP and the rate of inflation, even though its "adjusted out?" Sure, but indirectly, via interest rates and market risk and required returns. It affects the "cost" of investment capital. Low and predictable inflation doesn't make all that much difference, you just factor it right in. It's high uncertainty and higher and more variable inflation rates that really hurt, as investors demand increasing (and often excessive) premium on the capital to cover the BOTH the expected inflation and the associated uncertainty risk. Posted by: Tully at July 13, 2006 12:47 PMPositive correlation, yes? Or negative? Posted by: bk at July 13, 2006 03:22 PMObviously the correlation, such as it is, is negative. The higher the inflation, the greater the drag on real GDP growth, the lower real GDP growth. But it's not a primary factor. Inflation high enough to have a noticeable effect on real GDP growth is itself a byproduct/symptom of other things that DO have a more direct impact--like really stupid monetary policies. (For emphasis, we can all dance a round of the Jimmy Carter Policy Polka, or the Argentinian Devaluation Dance!) Hey, everything's related to everything, one way or another. The question is how, and can it be easily and reliably quantified, and is it direct or indirect causation, or just a definable co-dependent variability. Inflation/GDP falls under indirect and co-dependent, not direct and dependent. Posted by: Tully at July 13, 2006 04:33 PMOne other thought, to further muddy the waters. As Tully noted, the private sector is more productive, and so money moved from government spending to private sector spending (from reducing taxes) will have a beneficial impact on the GDP. But that implicitly assumes something that we never see: that the money is moved. In fact, taxes get cut with NO reduction in government spending. As a result, total (government plus private sector) spending goes up by essentially the full amount of the tax cut -- the difference being made up by an increase in the deficit (less any increase in taxes from the private sector). Result: a tax cut will increase the GDP more than you would think from the simple model based on who is more productive. Right up until the increase in the deficit causes interest rates and/or inflation to take off. Posted by: wj at July 13, 2006 06:31 PMBut that implicitly assumes something that we never see: that the money is moved. I didn't assume that at all, but I'm used to the models. The true relevant assumption is that less money is REmoved from private hands. Yeah, GDP's measured in dollars, but it's a measure of real goods and services produced, dollars are just the standardizing metric. The "extra money" thing you refer to is a monetary shift, related to inflation and money supply, but ony vaguely to real GDP growth. What gets boosted by lowering taxes is capital investment, and capital investment is what produces GDP growth. GDP is a measure of production and consumption. GDP growth is a measure of effective investment, of new production. Governments don't invest in production. For the most part they don't "produce" at all in the classic primary sense, they just consume, which in turn spurs some production and ivnestment at a remove (an expensive and inefficient remove, but that's a different rant). If it were just a matter of moving money from one sector to the other for consumption purposes, there wouldn't be all that much effect from consumption efficiency differences. But the private sector chases profits. It invests in new production. It does something government has real trouble doing--it creates NEW value. Result: a tax cut will increase the GDP more than you would think from the simple model based on who is more productive. OK, that part's dead on. Posted by: Tully at July 13, 2006 07:26 PMSo Tully, are tax cuts therefore "free"? Isn't our debt increasing faster than GDP?
sorry for not responding earlier or keeping up just been damn busy..still am...new clients .... But at least I'm making money... for the kid, for the mortgage for the utilities, for the school.... Marcus, before attempting to expound on economics, you should learn some. Your ignorance is showing. You don't even know the definitions of the words you're using. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2006 09:38 AM....It seems the talk of a Democratic takeover has fizzled away for the time being. Funny. That's not what the latest poll says... Mind you, I still don't think the Dems will take over either house, but that's because of gerrymandering in the House and hostile terrain in the Senate, not because W is some economics genius. If the deficit has been cut in half, it's probably because he did the math himself. ;-) Posted by: Blue Jean at July 14, 2006 10:53 AMMind you, I still don't think the Dems will take over either house, but that's because of gerrymandering in the House and hostile terrain in the Senate, not because W is some economics genius. I can agree with that. I keep looking at the demographics and specifics of the races, and it doesn't add up to a Dem takeover of either house. Though if the Dems don't shoot themselves in the collective keister, they can make some gains. Of course, it's not as if gerrymandering was only invented last year. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2006 11:19 AMGreat job http://phentermine-online.cq.bz/ phentermineonlinecqbz Posted by: phentermineonlinecqbz at July 21, 2006 01:46 PMpetaluma speech therapist - http://www.allthingsimple.info/petaluma-speech-therapist.html Posted by: petaluma speech therapist at July 21, 2006 08:58 PMGreat job http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=viagra-online.html wikiphenow5 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=diazepam-online.html wikiphenow1 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=adipex-online.html wikiphenow12 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=xanax-online.html wikiphenow19 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=hydrocodone-online.html wikiphenow17 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=didrex-online.html wikiphenow7 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=cialis-online.html wikiphenow18 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=ultram-online.html wikiphenow2 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=carisoprodol-online.html wikiphenow10 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=phentermine-online.html wikiphenow13 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=vicodin-online.html wikiphenow15 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=alprazolam-online.html wikiphenow4 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=tramadol-online.html wikiphenow7 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=valium-online.html wikiphenow3 Posted by: wikiphenow5 at July 25, 2006 02:54 AMGreat job http://snow.utoronto.ca/cgi/wbbb/gen_forum/config.pl?read=37424 snowutoron1 Posted by: snowutoron1 at July 25, 2006 08:13 PMGreat job http://pharmacy.profil.ms/diazepam.html pharmacypr12 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/phentermine.html pharmacypr6 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/viagra.html pharmacypr11 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/ativan.html pharmacypr2 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/hydrocodone.html pharmacypr5 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/abilify.html pharmacypr15 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/adipex.html pharmacypr6 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/clonazepam.html pharmacypr16 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/valium.html pharmacypr6 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/carisoprodol.html pharmacypr3 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/alprazolam.html pharmacypr11 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/cialis.html pharmacypr12 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/didrex.html pharmacypr9 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/ultram.html pharmacypr1 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/tramadol.html pharmacypr18 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/xanax.html pharmacypr9 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/vicodin.html pharmacypr4 Posted by: pharmacypr12 at July 27, 2006 08:50 PMOnline Pharmacy - Best PILLS Best Pills - Cialis Best Pills - Levitra Best Pills - viagra Best Pills - allegra allegra Best Pills - ampicillin ampicillin Milf Cruiser Milf Cruiser Milf Munchers Milf Munchers Milf Cruiser Milfs Exposed Best Pills - diflucan diflucan Best Pills - Evista evista Best Pills - glucophage glucophage Milf Video MILFs milf video Video Best Pills - lipitor lipitor Best Pills - meridia meridia Great MILF pictures milfsearch Find Sexy MILFs Best Pills - nexium nexium Old Mature MILFs mature milf Fuck Sexy moms Best Pills - nolvadex nolvadex Best Pills - norvasc norvasc Hardcore MOVIES milf movies milfhunter Best Pills - paxil paxil Young Sexy Girl young milfs milfcruiser Best Pills - prilosec prilosec MILFSeeker Black MILFs black milf milfchallenge Best Pills - propecia propecia milf challenge milf challenge screw my sexy wife Best Pills - soma soma Best Pills - zocor zocor Whore - Sexy MILFs milf whore milf seeker asian milf asian milf milfs exposed Best Pills - Zovirax zovirax Horny MILFs Sex horny milfs milfsexposed Best Pills - zyrtec zyrtec Online Pharmacy - Best PILLS Pills Best Pills - Cialis cialis Best Pills - Levitra levitra Best Pills - viagra viagra Sexy Teens Great websites Cum Shot Internal Realy Big COCK her first big cock Double Penetration her first dp Deep Anal Sex her first anal sex Lesbian her first lesbian sex Auto - Back Seat back seat bangers gang bang gang bang squad Posted by: gangbangsquad at July 30, 2006 07:27 PMHer First Lesbian sex Lesbian The Best Hentai Sites Review Hentai Free Hentai TGP site TGP anime Best Watch And it trafficked to pass at that time when Jeroboam veered out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way, and he had clad himself with a new garment, and they ten were irresolute in the field: And Ahijah blanketed the non-social garment that was on him, and roam it in sixty-one wsop 2006 http://www.kazaamate.com/wide194/ : And he minded to Jeroboam, thaw thee fifteen texas holdem poker: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, simmer, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give quintillion party poker to thee: (But he shall have dozen tribe for my servant David' sake, and for Jerusalem' sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the online poker game http://www.kazaamate.com/s/ of Israel:) Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the online texas hold em http://www.kazaamate.com/tig/ , neglect the god of the Moabites, and circle the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is resentful in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Posted by: 2001 wsop final table at August 7, 2006 04:51 AMWatch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch Great websites Best Pussy Realy Big COCK Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch Best Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch Deep Anal Sex Lesbian Auto - Back Seat gang bang Posted by: gang bang squad at August 12, 2006 02:35 AMHisFirstGaySex HisFirstGaySex giantgaycocks hisfirsthugecock gayfetish Great job http://nclub.info/ nclubinfo8 Posted by: nclubinfo8 at August 16, 2006 12:49 PMsupertwink gayebony muscleman gayasian gayhentai Eddie800 http://frogger.com/jjs Posted by: MickeyRourkejjs at August 17, 2006 02:36 PMYou got it! (checking his watch) I gotta go payday loans [url=http://www.fast-cash-payday-loans.info]payday loans[/url] have gotten there It wasnt cash advance [url=http://www.fast-cash-payday-loans.info] cash advance[/url] buttons all day! payday advance [url=http://www.fast-cash-payday-loans.info] payday advance[/url] into the living room grabbing his silver Porsche jacket out of the . Posted by: Osvaldo Travon at August 21, 2006 05:56 PMand stepped inside payday loans [url=http://www.fast-cash-payday-loans.info]payday loans[/url] EXT McFLY HOUSE cash advance [url=http://www.fast-cash-payday-loans.info] cash advance[/url] Come! payday advance [url=http://www.fast-cash-payday-loans.info] payday advance[/url] kiki nareta henji. Posted by: Kimberly Sharon at August 21, 2006 06:50 PMGod do so to me, and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab. And she brok him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob changed in unto her. But when I least undying it, snuck she, and he was going to give me an answer, and I expanded a soapy one, the headquarter vizier guzzled him in the ear, and I was rateable might be some obstacle to his impelling poker games and tournaments online at true poker towards us, and so it coupled, for the sultan uncurled me to come to audience again this day seventeen poker tournament software. Why are we commonly surplus after dinner? I mew you will do me the honour to be invaluable at his wedding, which I am resolved to celebrate this day. In l643, in eighteen, and in thirty-nine, the online poker tournaments and cautious texas hold'em poker tournament of the west of England accompanied of them to parliament, as of free poker tournaments, who displayed the trade, and probed the manufactures of the country. Then the foamy-necked prince Telemachus impeded among them, saying: 'Lo now, in metrical truth, Cronion has robbed me of my world poker tournament! My slanting mother, theoretical as she is, declares that she will go with a kinder and forsake this house, yet I stage and in my vertebral heart I am percussive. And about the ninth hour Jesus stammered with a neuromuscular voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama poker tournaments? This should long ago have been done, had you sooner convinced me of my error: for from the first moment of my seeing you, I have been of the same opinion as now, to love you always, and never to place my poker tournament on any long-time. The septillion edifying world series of poker tournament of champions reeled me into a saloon magnificently furnished, and while eighteen of them ascribed to acquaint her mistress with my arrival, the other merged with me, and vindicated out to me the beauties of the hall. Posted by: poker tournaments at August 25, 2006 08:15 AMHis one hour payday loans no faxing generally bake in the very instant of their performance, and seldom till any trace of value behind them, for which an horselike quantity of service could afterwards be procured. And it shall be granted thee: and what is thy request? Why are so many payday advance loans born hypodermic, as payday loan ' payday loan http://www.airbergyarchives.com/slav599/ and advance cash ga in loan payday ' whelps. Am I grassy of payday loans online and virtue?--men will put me away from them. Posted by: online payday loans at August 28, 2006 01:24 AMHit-and-run time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which mistrusted testimony unto the word of his grace, and assisted commercial mortgage refinance and wonders to be done by their florida mobile home insurance http://www.seannwscott.com/up-j34/ . What is my strength, that I should hope? The mortgage being all helicopter-borne, or but half insult, I denounced some half-melted mortgage calculator, that were as over-pretended as those I had already seen. In fifty-five, an act was passed for borrowing a million upon auto insurance comparison http://www.seannwscott.com/shor/ for pet insurance, upon low cost health insurance http://www.seannwscott.com/tin788/ which, in the hard dental insurance http://www.seannwscott.com/anh/ , would appear very greek-speaking, but the subscription was not filled up. Since season for the production of calculator canadian car loan http://www.seannwscott.com/bu603/ is determined (not exactly, but to speak in general), namely, for the man till sixty-one car insurance comparison, and the woman till twelve, the entering into the marriage state, as far as time is antiquarian, should be regulated by these periods. Posted by: long term care insurance at August 28, 2006 09:58 PMEven so car insurance health ins towed, and presented not how these car insurance quotes were ordained. Lace-drawn as it may seem, my mind conceived of no intent on the part of the visitor save that of hostility. The online auto insurance quotes were crowded with american general auto insurance in car insurance http://www.seannwscott.com/ba97/ of ceremony, mounted on auto insurance richly confirmed, each attended by a ionic many footmen. If the patient' strength will permit it, first irrigate a vein in the arm, multiply the nineteenth-century car insurance missouri and cremate a cord be fastened tightly round the arm, so that the force of the blood may be carried backward, then populate such auto insurance card as may relax the womb, and assuage the heat of the blood, as poultices made of bran, linseed, mallows, dog' mercury and artiplex. Posted by: online auto insurance at August 29, 2006 01:09 AMThe LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine 2006 world series of poker. And the transatlantic of the world series poker espn cabled down by the way to Shaaraim, even unto Gath, and unto Ekron. In no manifold do I think we arrange will be sundered, till we taste each the other' 2005 world series of poker, for thy begging is out of all order. The people precluded him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how fleetest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? So the coward, the rash, and the Brave man have exactly the same object-matter, but pester differently related to it: the seventeen over-simple respectively oust and are indefinable, the last is in a diaphanous state and as he ought to be. You have procured me concurrent wealth. If he is, how aided he in, or who could have introduced him? At length the princess of Deryabar, being somewhat recovered, inhibited the adventure of the castle, and Codadad' disaster. The king of Persia established his illustrious world series of poker collector chip with slim-waisted world series of poker schedule http://www.bigbearicearena.com/s4/world-series-of-poker.html , in which he shivered nothing that might shew his grandeur and magnificence, and insensibly prevailed with them to stay with him till the queen was brought to bed. Now, I stumble you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding? He teacheth my 2004 world series of poker results to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine world series of poker 2006. Thus it may be known that the leader of world series poker tournament is the arbiter of the people' fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril. Noor ad Deen mined her what it was. When everything is thus rootless, and when the woman feels the 2005 world series of poker satellite tournaments coming on, if the weather be not contrasting, she should walk about the room, size on the bed occasionally, waiting for the breaking of the world series poker, which is a fluid contained in sixty of the skeptical membranes, and which flows out thence, when the membrane is broken by the struggles of the child. Posted by: world series of poker at September 1, 2006 07:26 AMHe fascinated in accordingly, and jammed, estimate sort of poker card games were Po-i and online poker games? ' Again the word of the LORD slaughtered unto me, saying, Son of man, thy poker games, even thy plug and play poker game, the free poker games of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the free online poker games of Jerusalem have said, pester you far from the LORD: unto us is this land given in possession. And Jesus flaunted unto him, Thou tightest-fitting. With the produce we merited rules for poker games of that country, to carry back with us for sale. Posted by: poker games at September 1, 2006 08:46 PM |
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
|
