The Economy After 4 years: Clinton vs. Bush

[Iriemon]

I give them some credit....


the presidente doesn't really matter all that much anyway though..right?


Anyway, I'm going to sit here and wait for 2008 now.

The presidente matters a lot. It is true that budget and spending bills are passed by Congress, but the president has a huge input in the process of how the budget is passed. If his party controls Congress, the president, as leader of his party, can basically dictate budget items (depending upon how much power he has in his party). Regardless, the president has line-item veto power which he can use to cut individual items or veto the whole budget. This threat was used by Clinton against the Republican Congress. Clinton vetoed or threatened to veto tax cuts the Republican Congress wanted, thereby averting the revenue decreases and deficit budgets. When Bush came into power, he supported tax cuts and spending increases, which the Republican congress happily obliged.

The president has a huge impact on fiscal policy and whether the budget is balanced or deficit.

 

[SMIRKnCHIMP]

Sure.:roll: Trickle down economics was the key.:roll:
This claim is even less valid than the one originally posted in this thread. The 90's were a ride because of Silicon Valley and the end of the Cold War (Which Reagan had less to do with than is often implied). I guess you could say that if we didn't have Bush and Reagan, there would be no post-republican peace time and the change wouldn't have been as noticeable, but I'd hardly give them the credit.

Trickle Down economics is a farce......a tool to steal from the middle class and enrich the elite. Did not work under the Actor of B Grade movies.....not working under the Current Commander in Chimp.

BUSH 1 raised taxes to try and offset the deficts REAGAN ran up!

 

[LaMidRighter]

A long-winded explanation of the same thing -- for whatever reason, there was overspeculation in the markets. Not the first time in history this stuff happened, nor the last, we are probably seeing it in parts of the housing market.

Not really, the housing market is completely different in that your house as purchased is an asset, even if it devalues somewhat it's value can never be zero, meaning you can sell it even at a loss, without assets and backing capitol the dot coms were actually capable of having an absolute zero value(not probable but possible) and were subject to major colapses. I also would say that the market wasn't necessarily overspeculated outside of the dot coms, it's just that consumer confidence was up, whether you want to give Mr. Clinton credit or whether you want to blame him for the accounting lapses is a matter of party affiliation.

True, accounting tricks are played (which is how the WH can proclaim the deficit will "only" be $300 billion this year when the govt has already borrowed more thatn $500 billion). But three points to your two points:

1) Regardless of whether there was an actual "surplus," you cannot (reasonably) deny that government borrowing has vastly increased during the current Administration from its late 1999s levels

We're in a war, so borrowing will increase, and I am not a fan of deficit spending, but for my money the Republicans are typically the lesser of two evils. Besides, this whole process intensified during the mid 60's under LBJ almost every politician is now forced to give a certain amount of tax dollars to societal problems if they want re-elect.

2) There actually was a surplus. Both in terms of how the Govt calculates it (See Congressional Budget Office Historical Data, http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0), and in terms of gross public debt, which decreased (for the first time in decades) more than $100 billion between 12/31/99 ($5,776 biillion) and 12/31/00 ($5,662 bilion); Clinton's last year in office. You can get the number from theTreasury Department. http://www2.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

I'll have to take a look at the figures.

3) The massive federal debt is directly the result of Republican deficit budgets. It doesn't get better by borrowing another $600 billion every year. It only gets better by balancing the budget and running a surplus. Which under Clinton we had started doing (see point (2)).

I can't make a comment yet.

 

[Iriemon]

We're in a war, so borrowing will increase, and I am not a fan of deficit spending, but for my money the Republicans are typically the lesser of two evils. Besides, this whole process intensified during the mid 60's under LBJ almost every politician is now forced to give a certain amount of tax dollars to societal problems if they want re-elect.

Borrowing will only increase if expenditures increase while revenues do not. If we want to play war games, the noble thing to do would be to raise taxes to pay for it, not borrow the costs and shove them onto the next generation.

“Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.” 3/3/01.

I wholeheartedly agree with President Bush on this.

In any case, the cost of the war isn't really the driver behind these deficits. The government last year alone borrowed about twice as much ($600 billion) as the entire cost of the war so far. It's on track to do the same thing this year.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Borrowing will only increase if expenditures increase while revenues do not. If we want to play war games, the noble thing to do would be to raise taxes to pay for it, not borrow the costs and shove them onto the next generation.

“Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.” 3/3/01.

I wholeheartedly agree with President Bush on this.

In any case, the cost of the war isn't really the driver behind these deficits. The government last year alone borrowed about twice as much ($600 billion) as the entire cost of the war so far. It's on track to do the same thing this year.

I think I forgot to make a key point, thus my argument tanked, the key point is this, War economies increase because of defense contracts through private companies, this in turn causes an increase in speculation bringing more investment(and taxable) dollars, therefore even though war is not a preferable condition defense spending is a good investment because it has a built in return, whereas many government social programs are failing miserably because they are "temporary" relief programs but don't usually have a return on investment, this is the kind of spending I despise as far as increases, they need to be more efficient rather than the current practice of throwing money at them. The previous rule also applies to many of the regulatory agencies as well.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Clinton was good at economic management. He didn't interfere to much into the economy. That is how economies prefer to be...

If anything Clinton was actually benefitting from the generous tax cuts that Reagan implemented. At the time many people thought that Reagan was mad, especially when the defecit was in such bad shape. But the kind of economic policies that Reagan implemented were long term. I.e Reagan's legacy would benefit Americans in the next decade.

Clinton was a good economically, in that he didn't rock the boat so to speak. But if anything Bill, was just fortunate to be in power once Reagan's economic policies were bearing fruit.

My point is; that if George Bush Snr had won 92', historians would be looking back on him, as turning the economy around.

But in reality it was Reagan that was the true economic visionary.

A similar thing happened in Australia, but the tax cuts during the 80's were actually made by the Labour Party (this countries equivalent to the Democrats). During this period our Prime Minister Bob Hawke, and the Treasurer Paul Keating, argued that Australia's top effective tax rate should be lowered from 60% to 50%. At the time people thought it was mad, because it would only increase the budget defecit. But Hawke, and Keating argued that tax cuts were the most effective way of getting Australia out of recession.

Now our current Prime Minister John Howard, (his ruling party is probably closer to the Republican Party), has beaten the Labour party consistantly, in the last few elections, becasue he has been clever enough to argue that his government had helped to create the current economic boom in Australia, and that infact the former Labour government of Bob Hawke, was actually very bad at managing the economy. (Big government defecits.)

The general public lap this scaremongering up. But if anything, it was the political insight of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, that has created the current economic boom, that John Howard claims to be his doing.

The fact is this. In the short term, reduction in income taxes will generate, government defecits. But in the long term, lower taxes increase the tax base, and in the long term government's will generate budget surplusses. As we have seen during the Clinton and Howard years in office.

As soon as people understand more about economics, they will realise that the the healthiest economies, are ones with relatively low taxes, and where governments don't over regualte business.

Oh and the US is fighting a war at the moment. I'd like to see the budget figures if you took out the current cost of the war in Iraq.

Hopefully France and Germany will learn from America, Australia, and Britain, that market liberalism, and low taxes are the way to go. Otherwise their socialist paradise is looking very gloomy indeed.

 

[Iriemon]

I think I forgot to make a key point, thus my argument tanked, the key point is this, War economies increase because of defense contracts through private companies, this in turn causes an increase in speculation bringing more investment(and taxable) dollars, therefore even though war is not a preferable condition defense spending is a good investment because it has a built in return, whereas many government social programs are failing miserably because they are "temporary" relief programs but don't usually have a return on investment, this is the kind of spending I despise as far as increases, they need to be more efficient rather than the current practice of throwing money at them. The previous rule also applies to many of the regulatory agencies as well.

Your argument is that by the government giving money to private defense companies, they will invest it. So why doesn't the Govt just give all its money to private companies and things will be really peachy?

Why would you presume that private defense companies can invest the money more efficiently than any other entity and individual in the US? With a history of $400 toilet seats and Hilliburton I think that your argument that giving money to the industrial military complex is the an economically effiicient use of our tax dollars has some assumptions that are questionable.

In fact, money spent on the military, building tanks plane and ships, adds nothing to the infrastructure of the US to make the US economy operate more effectively. Of course, you need to have those things. But the argument that the Govt should spend lots of money on the military because its economically beneficialy doesn't wash. It would be much better to cut military spending and have a tax cut. Or stop borrowing so much money.

 

[Hoot]

Clinton was good at economic management. He didn't interfere to much into the economy. That is how economies prefer to be...

If anything Clinton was actually benefitting from the generous tax cuts that Reagan implemented. At the time many people thought that Reagan was mad, especially when the defecit was in such bad shape. But the kind of economic policies that Reagan implemented were long term. I.e Reagan's legacy would benefit Americans in the next decade.

Clinton was a good economically, in that he didn't rock the boat so to speak. But if anything Bill, was just fortunate to be in power once Reagan's economic policies were bearing fruit.

My point is; that if George Bush Snr had won 92', historians would be looking back on him, as turning the economy around.

But in reality it was Reagan that was the true economic visionary.

Right wing spin. Reagan raised taxes during his administration. You can look it up in any decent set of encyclopedias. So, there goes your whole premise of Reagan's 'economic policies bearing fruit.'

Reagan bought a momentary prosperity by spending our nation into the poor house, with no regard for the large bill he left for future generations to deal with.

In 1981, Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act which reduced taxes by about 33 billion for fiscal year 1982.

In 1982, Reagan signed what was then the largest tax increase in U.S. history of 91 billion, but his continued obscene spending gave us a record deficit level.....until he broke that record again in 1983.

Spend, spend, spend...tax, tax, tax, that's Reagan's true economic legacy.

It took a Democratic President to get our spending under control. Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Likewise, the current Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. He's trying to buy a momentary properity by giving our nation a bill that will take over 200 years to pay off. Great fiscal policy, isn't it?

 

[Iriemon]

Clinton was good at economic management. He didn't interfere to much into the economy. That is how economies prefer to be...

If anything Clinton was actually benefitting from the generous tax cuts that Reagan implemented.

I agree that with tax rates of over 70% were too high when Reagan was elected, and tax cuts were beneficial. However, his cut (top rate of 28%) combined with a military buildup, resulted in historically high deficits. Clinton and the Democrats raised the top rate to 39% in 1993 over the objection of every single Republican. That brave act (they paid dearly for it in the 94 elections) was a significant factor in getting the budget under control.

At the time many people thought that Reagan was mad, especially when the defecit was in such bad shape.

The deficit in 1979 was only 38 billion dollars. Through the maturity of Reagan's policies through 1992, the deficit ballooned to 340 billion, 10 x higher in just 12 years. The US debt was 33% of GDP in 1979, by the time Clinton came into office, it was 65%. Similarly, the debt was 1.8x greater than Govt revenue in 1979, by 1992 the debt was 3.7x greater than revenue.

But the kind of economic policies that Reagan implemented were long term. I.e Reagan's legacy would benefit Americans in the next decade.

Reagan's economic policies as continued by Bush I and now re-employed by Bush II have put this country seriously into debt. Debt is now 3.9x greater than revenue, a post-war record. The government paid $320 billion interest last year alone, thanks to Reagan's legacy.

Clinton was a good economically, in that he didn't rock the boat so to speak. But if anything Bill, was just fortunate to be in power once Reagan's economic policies were bearing fruit.

Clinton's and the Democrat's brave tax increase in 1993, and Clinton's veto of Republican demanded tax cuts, are the main reasons why this country isn't even more serious in debt than it is.

My point is; that if George Bush Snr had won 92', historians would be looking back on him, as turning the economy around.

Bush Snr ran record deficits that were at $340 billion when he left office. That was his legacy.

But in reality it was Reagan that was the true economic visionary.

And therefore is the true person response for the $8 trillion debt the Govt has today -- the gift of the "pass the buck" generation to the next generation.

A similar thing happened in Australia, but the tax cuts during the 80's were actually made by the Labour Party (this countries equivalent to the Democrats). During this period our Prime Minister Bob Hawke, and the Treasurer Paul Keating, argued that Australia's top effective tax rate should be lowered from 60% to 50%. At the time people thought it was mad, because it would only increase the budget defecit. But Hawke, and Keating argued that tax cuts were the most effective way of getting Australia out of recession.

Now our current Prime Minister John Howard, (his ruling party is probably closer to the Republican Party), has beaten the Labour party consistantly, in the last few elections, becasue he has been clever enough to argue that his government had helped to create the current economic boom in Australia, and that infact the former Labour government of Bob Hawke, was actually very bad at managing the economy. (Big government defecits.)

The general public lap this scaremongering up. But if anything, it was the political insight of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, that has created the current economic boom, that John Howard claims to be his doing.

I cannot comment on the Australian economy, as I know nothing about it.

The fact is this. In the short term, reduction in income taxes will generate, government defecits.

The US Govt has lost well over 1/2 trillion in tax revenues based on the revenue decrease from 2000. And that is with an economy that has grown over 20% in actual dollars.

But in the long term, lower taxes increase the tax base, and in the long term government's will generate budget surplusses.

Supply side conservatives speak this as if it is an absolute truth. It is demonstrably not. If you cut the tax rate to 1%, for example, tax revenues will not rise.

As we have seen during the Clinton and Howard years in office.

Clinton raise taxes 40% over Reagan's. Under your theory, the deficits should have grown because of this. The opposite happened.

As soon as people understand more about economics, they will realise that the the healthiest economies, are ones with relatively low taxes, and where governments don't over regualte business.

I agree that taxes can be too high and stifle incentive. But the idea that lowering taxes automatically increases revenue is wrong. You can see the result of the Bush tax cuts on US govt revenues in an ealier post I made.

Oh and the US is fighting a war at the moment. I'd like to see the budget figures if you took out the current cost of the war in Iraq.

The total cost of the Iraq war since it started is roughly $300 billion. While that is much greater than was anticipated because our leaders told us this was going to be a quick in and out; it represents only a small portion of the $2.2 trillion borrowed since the Bush Admin took office.

Hopefully France and Germany will learn from America, Australia, and Britain, that market liberalism, and low taxes are the way to go. Otherwise their socialist paradise is looking very gloomy indeed

Low taxes are great. But if you do not generate enough revenue and essentially borrow 25% of what you spend, you generate a big debt. If the US continues to borrow an additional $600 billion every year, the debt will eventually drag the economy down, and we will be trying to catch up to France and Germany.

 

[Iriemon]

Right wing spin. Reagan raised taxes during his administration. You can look it up in any decent set of encyclopedias. So, there goes your whole premise of Reagan's 'economic policies bearing fruit.' ?

While there might have been a tax increase here and there (notably in SS taxes), overall taxes were drastically reduced during Reagan's term.

Reagan bought a momentary prosperity by spending our nation into the poor house, with no regard for the large bill he left for future generations to deal with.

The national debt more than doubled during Reagan's term, and had quadrupled in size by the time Bush I left office.

In 1981, Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act which reduced taxes by about 33 billion for fiscal year 1982.

In 1982, Reagan signed what was then the largest tax increase in U.S. history of 91 billion, but his continued obscene spending gave us a record deficit level.....until he broke that record again in 1983.

Do you have a source for this? The income top income tax rate was slashed by Reagan from about 70% to 28%.

Spend, spend, spend...tax, tax, tax, that's Reagan's true economic legacy.

I think borrow borrow borrow is more accurate.

Likewise, the current Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. He's trying to buy a momentary properity by giving our nation a bill that will take over 200 years to pay off. Great fiscal policy, isn't it

This is the sad legacy of our "pass the buck" generation.

 

[Hoot]

Hoot>>Quote:
In 1981, Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act which reduced taxes by about 33 billion for fiscal year 1982.

In 1982, Reagan signed what was then the largest tax increase in U.S. history of 91 billion, but his continued obscene spending gave us a record deficit level.....until he broke that record again in 1983.<<Hoot


Iriemon>>Do you have a source for this? The income top income tax rate was slashed by Reagan from about 70% to 28%.<<Iriemon

You can find these facts in any set of encyclopedias. I read about it in World Book encyclopedia. Let's see...a tax decrease of 33 billion, and a tax increase of 91 billion, leaves a tax increase of 58 billion under Reagan.

Reagan raised taxes again in 1987, mostly on corporations, but still, another tax increase.

Here's the deal, the right wing likes to spin the tax cuts as Reagan's legacy, and blame the tax increases on the Dem congress, refusing to acknowledge that Reagan signed those tax increases into law.

Reagan tried to do something in '86 about the slow economic growth by simplifing the tax code, but after a U.S. stock market crash on..... Oct. 19, 1987, Reagan and yes, Congress, agreed on tax increases for 1988.

Do a search on the 1981 Economic Recovery Act, and maybe fiscal year, 1982, and you'll see that reagan did indeed raise taxes....the right just likes to spin the real truth.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Your argument is that by the government giving money to private defense companies, they will invest it. So why doesn't the Govt just give all its money to private companies and things will be really peachy?

Not quite the way I look at it, government is solely responsible for protecting citizens with an adequate military, which means you need gear, this is why the defense contracting happens, I disagree with corporate subsidies unless said corporation would have some public benefit, such as Jeep which started as a military vehicle and branched out into civilian models later, there are many opinions on this, but I believe in Laissez Faire economics tempered with little restrictions based on common sense, I also subscribe to the saying "the government that governs best governs least."

Why would you presume that private defense companies can invest the money more efficiently than any other entity and individual in the US? With a history of $400 toilet seats and Hilliburton I think that your argument that giving money to the industrial military complex is the an economically effiicient use of our tax dollars has some assumptions that are questionable.

The trick to this is that the government is wasting our tax dollars, the corporations taking these contracts wouldn't be around if they weren't good at investment and management practices, government waste is admittedly bad and there is no way to argue the other point, however corporate re-investment is a great way to stir up a stagnant market and a solid fact is that this has happened in every modern war.

In fact, money spent on the military, building tanks plane and ships, adds nothing to the infrastructure of the US to make the US economy operate more effectively.

I beg to differ, with the current progressive tax in which I am not a fan, all gains are taxed, meaning the cycle completes itself when the profits made from the initial contract are taxed back into the system, the same would go for a national sales tax because of raw material purchases to process the machines of war.

Of course, you need to have those things. But the argument that the Govt should spend lots of money on the military because its economically beneficialy doesn't wash.

Your free to hold that opinion of course but I believe it to be the other way around.

It would be much better to cut military spending and have a tax cut. Or stop borrowing so much money.

I don't know, I like for our boys and girls in the military to have advanced weaponry, anything that can save more of their lives is money well spent in my opinion, stopping the borrowing is a great idea though.

 

[Iriemon]

Not quite the way I look at it, government is solely responsible for protecting citizens with an adequate military, which means you need gear, this is why the defense contracting happens, I disagree with corporate subsidies unless said corporation would have some public benefit, such as Jeep which started as a military vehicle and branched out into civilian models later, there are many opinions on this, but I believe in Laissez Faire economics tempered with little restrictions based on common sense, I also subscribe to the saying "the government that governs best governs least."

Whether we need a military (I agree we do) is a different that the proposition that the Govt should spend money on the military because it is an economically effective way to spend its money (which I disagree with).

The trick to this is that the government is wasting our tax dollars, the corporations taking these contracts wouldn't be around if they weren't good at investment and management practices, .

Unless they were good at developing political contacts which got them the contracts regardless of merit (can you say Halliburton no-bid?).

Aside from how good the operation of a company is, building another F-22 does not benefit the company per se, except for use in warfare. While it is true that companies and their employees get Govt $$$, that is true whatever the Govt spends its money on. It is not like investing in improving the infrastructure, for example.

government waste is admittedly bad and there is no way to argue the other point, however corporate re-investment is a great way to stir up a stagnant market and a solid fact is that this has happened in every modern war

I am not sure why the Govt giving $$ on corporation is more effective at this than giving $$ to individuals. Even if true, I don't see why the Govt giving $$ to military contractors is better than any other corporation. Military contractors don't have a great reputation when it comes to things like cost effectiveness and efficiency.

I beg to differ, with the current progressive tax in which I am not a fan, all gains are taxed, meaning the cycle completes itself when the profits made from the initial contract are taxed back into the system, the same would go for a national sales tax because of raw material purchases to process the machines of war. Your free to hold that opinion of course but I believe it to be the other way around. I don't know, I like for our boys and girls in the military to have advanced weaponry, anything that can save more of their lives is money well spent in my opinion, stopping the borrowing is a great idea though.

But this is true of anything the Govt spends its money on. What you have not explained is why speniding money on the military is a better investment than spending it on something else. Or just cutting taxes, for example, and letting people decide the more efficient use of the money, not the Govt. If you believe in free enterprise, then you agree with that proposition. If the Govt did things so much better, we'd all be better off living under Communist regimes.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Whether we need a military (I agree we do) is a different that the proposition that the Govt should spend money on the military because it is an economically effective way to spend its money (which I disagree with).

The government has always been responsible for maintaining a national defense, which is why they should spend the money on a national defense, in fact, during the confederal years of America, there was no defense because taxes were voluntary and thus not many people stepped up, which is why only the government should tax and spend in this particular case, other cases are not exactly clear cut.

Unless they were good at developing political contacts which got them the contracts regardless of merit (can you say Halliburton no-bid?).

Merit based contracts are fine and good, but the Haliburton thing is based on one reason, only two companies Schlumberger(French) and Haliburton(American) were capable of the massive efforts in Iraq and I don't see any good reason to give a contract to the same country that snubbed our efforts in the first place.

Aside from how good the operation of a company is, building another F-22 does not benefit the company per se, except for use in warfare. While it is true that companies and their employees get Govt $$$, that is true whatever the Govt spends its money on. It is not like investing in improving the infrastructure, for example.

Infrastructure and defense are essential, but they both benefit the public in different ways, the military has tools based on future need whereas public works are a constant need and both are constitutionally mandated as government duties, the big problem comes from pork spending and social programs that are inefficient and easily abused.

I am not sure why the Govt giving $$ on corporation is more effective at this than giving $$ to individuals.

Real simple, corporations end up paying it back in taxes in greater dividends, but corporate subsidies are not the gist of the argument here and not something that I personally defend.

Even if true, I don't see why the Govt giving $$ to military contractors is better than any other corporation.

Simple, the government is contracting from the private sector to perform it's constitutional duty, companies typically produce better results than beurocratically hampered departments.

Military contractors don't have a great reputation when it comes to things like cost effectiveness and efficiency.

This point isn't a private problem, it's a beurocracy problem, government branches lose money in the next fiscal year if they come in under budget, so they spend into the red intentionally to get more money in the upcoming term, it's a greed thing caused by red tape.

But this is true of anything the Govt spends its money on. What you have not explained is why speniding money on the military is a better investment than spending it on something else.

Real simple, social programs typically foster a dependence on said programs and take away the immediate necessity to survive from those on government payrolls, leading to an unfortunate situation where some on that assistance become solely dependent on said programs for survival, making many of these programs a drain, at least when contract spending is the case, some money will return on the investment.

Or just cutting taxes, for example, and letting people decide the more efficient use of the money, not the Govt. If you believe in free enterprise, then you agree with that proposition. If the Govt did things so much better, we'd all be better off living under Communist regimes.

I do agree that taxes need to be cut, I also go a step further and say that spending must be reduced as well, this means reforms in all budgetary matters including Social, Defense, and Corporate subsidies, along with others.

 

[Iriemon]

The government has always been responsible for maintaining a national defense, which is why they should spend the money on a national defense, in fact, during the confederal years of America, there was no defense because taxes were voluntary and thus not many people stepped up, which is why only the government should tax and spend in this particular case, other cases are not exactly clear cut.

Agree.

Merit based contracts are fine and good, but the Haliburton thing is based on one reason, only two companies Schlumberger(French) and Haliburton(American) were capable of the massive efforts in Iraq and I don't see any good reason to give a contract to the same country that snubbed our efforts in the first place.

So they say. I never could quite figure out what was so huge about feeding the troops or whatever else Haliburton does that some other company couldn't do it.

Infrastructure and defense are essential, but they both benefit the public in different ways, the military has tools based on future need whereas public works are a constant need and both are constitutionally mandated as government duties, the big problem comes from pork spending and social programs that are inefficient and easily abused.

Military tools are generally only needed and useful if there is a war. They can be helpful in certain domestic applications, like maintaining order in a natural disaster; and occassionally a military technological advancement benefits society as a whole ... ARPnet being a good example.

Real simple, corporations end up paying it back in taxes in greater dividends,

Now I get it. Defense contractors make such fat profits sucking off the Govt's nipple that they can pay big dividends that help the economy.

Simple, the government is contracting from the private sector to perform it's constitutional duty, companies typically produce better results than beurocratically hampered departments.

You mean those contractors making $400 toilet seats and $1000 hammers represent the efficient part of government?!? You don't think the DOD qualifies as a "bureaucratically hampered department"? LOL!

Real simple, social programs typically foster a dependence on said programs and take away the immediate necessity to survive from those on government payrolls, leading to an unfortunate situation where some on that assistance become solely dependent on said programs for survival, making many of these programs a drain, at least when contract spending is the case, some money will return on the investment.

I agree that money spent on social programs is not a economy enhancer as well.

I do agree that taxes need to be cut, I also go a step further and say that spending must be reduced as well, this means reforms in all budgetary matters including Social, Defense, and Corporate subsidies, along with others

I'll go with that, though I would not be willing to extend tax cuts until spending is under control and the budget balanced. Not fair to the next gen to pass the cost of our govt on to them.

 

[LaMidRighter]

So they say. I never could quite figure out what was so huge about feeding the troops or whatever else Haliburton does that some other company couldn't do it.

Feeding the troops, yeah many companies can do that, I believe it was an infrastructural thing, not quite sure but I believe it was based on the ability to get the oil fields back up quickly.

Military tools are generally only needed and useful if there is a war. They can be helpful in certain domestic applications, like maintaining order in a natural disaster; and occassionally a military technological advancement benefits society as a whole ... ARPnet being a good example.

This is true, but if something breaks out you need the tools available at that time, this is impossible unless you have them researched, built, and ready, a great example is the Humvee armor problem of a couple of months back.

Now I get it. Defense contractors make such fat profits sucking off the Govt's nipple that they can pay big dividends that help the economy.

Sad but true.

You mean those contractors making $400 toilet seats and $1000 hammers represent the efficient part of government?!? You don't think the DOD qualifies as a "bureaucratically hampered department"? LOL!

I saw news show on that, I think it was with John Stossel of ABC(when he was liberal no less) and it was explained that way, to get the budget of any particular department to go red they go for high bid contracts instead of the right way to do it and finding the lowest quote, I can say this, anyone budgeting in a company that I would own doing that would be immediately terminated with no chance for a resignation, the unfortunate thing about this is in government they get promoted.

I agree that money spent on social programs is not a economy enhancer as well.

I have mixed emotions about the issue, I think that at basic levels these social programs serve a good purpose but they are overly abused like all other buerocratic depts. and this is a major problem.

 

[Stinger]

In that regard, I don't quite agree that Clinton did "nothing." IMO, having a conservative, fiscally responsible government helps create a climate where the country can grow. Clinton and the Dems passed a tax increase (over the nay vote of every Republican) that helped reverse the alarming deficits he inherited from Reagan/Bush, so that by 2000, even the Bush economists were predicting surpluses and debt pay-down well into the future.

No no no, his tax increase stalled the recovery he inherited. Even he admitted he raised taxes too much.

Clinton also vetoed, or threatened to veto, the Republicans' attempt to cut taxes (and revenues) that would have put the Govt back into deficits (as happened when Bush was elected).

No no no you have it backwards, it was the tax cut that the Republicans DID pass that spured the economy out of the lackluster performance the Clinton tax increase had produced, THAT's when revenues really hit and the deficit turned into a surplus.

So sure, the economy has a natural growth cycle of its own, but by running a fiscally responsible budget, Clinton helped to create an environment where the economy could grow at a post-war record level.

Clinton didn't run a budget nor create any environment. His budgets were dead at the door, ALL of them requested higher spending that was passed and he was constantly harping of raising taxes but was denied it by the Republicans. He even opposed wel-fare reform with drastically cut the projected and future spending that required.

 

[Iriemon]

No no no, his tax increase stalled the recovery he inherited. Even he admitted he raised taxes too much.

Hmmm. The tax increase was passed in 1993 ...

GDP in constant (2000) dollars. Source: Bureau of Econ Analysis, Dept of Commerc. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm. Percent is increase from prior year.

1993 7532.7 2.67%
1994 7835.5 4.02%
1995 8031.7 2.50%
1996 8328.9 3.70%
1997 8703.5 4.50%
1998 9066.9 4.18%
1999 9470.3 4.45%
2000 9817.0 3.66%

That doesn't look like a real stalled economy to me.

If Clinton thought taxes were too high, I didn't see that, but in terms of economic performance, clearly the taxes were not too high. And they helped erase the deficit and create a surplus, they weren't too high for that, either.

I agree lower taxes are better for an economy, but not when the Govt has to borrow money from our kids to fund itself.

No no no you have it backwards, it was the tax cut that the Republicans DID pass that spured the economy out of the lackluster performance the Clinton tax increase had produced, THAT's when revenues really hit and the deficit turned into a surplus.

What time period are you talking about? The Republican tax cuts or 2000-2003 caused a 20% drop in federal income tax revenues (I posted the data earlier) and contributed to our current $600 billion a year deficits and the $2.2 trillion our pass-the-buck president has borrowed from the next generation (so far).

Clinton didn't run a budget nor create any environment. His budgets were dead at the door, ALL of them requested higher spending that was passed and he was constantly harping of raising taxes but was denied it by the Republicans. He even opposed wel-fare reform with drastically cut the projected and future spending that required.

He was just lucky, I guess. And smart. Two characteristics I like in a leader that our current one seems to lack. Well, Bush did get re-elected, that was lucky.

Clinton vetoed Republican attempts at tax cuts which would have thrown us into deficits, as it did when Bush got into power in 2000.

Earlier you say Clinton thought he raised taxes too high, here you are saying he was trying to raise them higher. Which is it?

 

[asmith555]

Gas prices in real dollars were the highest ever during Jimmy Carter reign. Therfore he was soley responsible for that. Isn't that the logic here.

The resession we are coming out of now is the result of an overheating economy. Clinton should have slowed the economy down to avoid the cliff effect. But doing what was best for the economy would have made him look bad, primarily because the typical American knows little about macro-economic theory. Stock were grosley overvalued and one day it was realised. I believe it started with an earnings report from Microsoft Late 1999. I remember I had the stock.

Another large issue is that supplies of G&S's were overflowing because of the surge of demand. However the accordion effect took place when demand dropped and supply was well... oversupplied. Jobs were lost because there was less need to manufacture goods. I took advantage of the G&S selloff and I am now reaping the rewards.

Economics is a complicated thing to understand and takes many years of study to understand. Many people dont't understand how the government took in more tax revenue after the Bush tax cuts. And a higher percentage of which was paid by the wealthy. You can verify this at irs.gov. Simply put the end of doulble taxaxtion of stock dividends encouraged wealthy people to move thier assets out of tax shelters and invest them in growth. The return now outweighed the tax burden. That money which had been tied up in tax shelters was now flowing into the liquid side of the economy and generating tax revenue.

Whether you believe it or not every American recieved a tax cut. Obviously people who pay more taxes got more benefit from this. A simple point is if you don't pay taxes then a tax cut will not benifit you as much directly. However even if you don't get a tax refund check tax cuts have still benefited you as a result of lower prices and increased production. More cash in the soup means more purchases means higher demand means rising supplies means more jobs. However this time around I believe Greenspan will keep the economy from growing to rapidly resulting in smaller flux cycles. Remember the higher you climb the further you fall.

Pesonally I don't think interest rates have risen enough yet. With a housing bubble about to bust rates should have been risen a year ago to slow the rising home prices. Just a peice of advice: If you have property to flip do it now.

 

[Iriemon]

Gas prices in real dollars were the highest ever during Jimmy Carter reign. Therfore he was soley responsible for that. Isn't that the logic here.

I agree that a president does not have control over the economy -- it is likewise not true to say he has no influence.

The resession we are coming out of now is the result of an overheating economy.

Whether we were actually in a "recession" is a debatable point. GDP never fell in a fiscal year, in 2001, the worst year, it went up .7%. There was definitely a slowdown; employment went from about 4 to 6%, though that is historically extremely low for a recession (unemployment hit 9% in '91, for example)

GDP in constant 2000 dollars, % change. Source: Dept. Commerce Bur. Econ. Analysis. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

2000 9817.0 3.66%
2001 9890.7 0.75%
2002 10048.8 1.60%
2003 10320.6 2.70%
2004 10755.7 4.22%

With growth projected at over 4% again this year, we are well out of the "recession"

Clinton should have slowed the economy down to avoid the cliff effect. But doing what was best for the economy would have made him look bad, primarily because the typical American knows little about macro-economic theory. Stock were grosley overvalued and one day it was realised. I believe it started with an earnings report from Microsoft Late 1999. I remember I had the stock.

I agree that there was overspeculation in the stock market, especially the tech stuff. However, hindsight is wonderful, and we can all see clearly now that the market was too high in 1999. It wasn't that clear then, some thought with the "new ecnomy" there was more room for growth. Some thought there was overspeculation in the market in 1996. I disagree it is the president's job to regulate the stock market, even assuming he can.

Some argue, with good reason IMO, that there is overspeculation in the housing market now. What has Mr. Bush done to prevent that? What should he be doing?

Another large issue is that supplies of G&S's were overflowing because of the surge of demand. However the accordion effect took place when demand dropped and supply was well... oversupplied. Jobs were lost because there was less need to manufacture goods. I took advantage of the G&S selloff and I am now reaping the rewards.

That happens in the business cycle.

Economics is a complicated thing to understand and takes many years of study to understand. Many people dont't understand how the government took in more tax revenue after the Bush tax cuts.

I am certainly one of those! Please explain how the Govt took in more revenue after the tax cuts. I wish someone would give me a source to who is claiming this. I have heard this said far too many times for it to be an isolated mistake.

Total Federal revenue.
Source: Congressional Budget office.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1881.1

The decrease in Income Tax revenue (which are directly affected by the Bush tax deferrements, err, tax cuts) is even more pronounced:

2000 1004.5
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0

Same source. Income tax revenues last year were still $200 billion lower than in 2000.

And a higher percentage of which was paid by the wealthy.

Only if you ignore the SS tax, which generates as much revenues as the income tax, and which the wealthy do not effectively pay.

You can verify this at irs.gov.

That is a huge site. A cite to a specific URL would be more helpful.

Simply put the end of doulble taxaxtion of stock dividends encouraged wealthy people to move thier assets out of tax shelters and invest them in growth. The return now outweighed the tax burden. That money which had been tied up in tax shelters was now flowing into the liquid side of the economy and generating tax revenue.

Income tax revenue in 2004 was 200 billion lower than in 2000, despite the fact that GDP in actual dollars grew 20% 2000-2004. If income tax revenues simply kept up with GDP growth, the income tax revenues would have been $200 billion higher, not $200 billion lower. That is a $400 billion swing in revenues annually.

Whether you believe it or not every American recieved a tax cut. Obviously people who pay more taxes got more benefit from this. A simple point is if you don't pay taxes then a tax cut will not benifit you as much directly.

This is incorrect.

Tens of millions of working Americans do not pay federal income taxes, because after the exemptions and deductions they owe no tax. These folks got no tax cut from Mr. Bush. Millions more pay a small amount of income tax and got a very small tax cut. All these folks pay an effective 15.5% flat payroll (SS/medicare) tax. Mr. Bush elected not to cut payroll taxes along with every other tax that was cut. Tens of millions of taxpayers got no tax cut from Mr. Bush.

However even if you don't get a tax refund check tax cuts have still benefited you as a result of lower prices and increased production.

What do you mean lower prices? Been to a gas pump lately?

More cash in the soup means more purchases means higher demand means rising supplies means more jobs. However this time around I believe Greenspan will keep the economy from growing to rapidly resulting in smaller flux cycles. Remember the higher you climb the further you fall.

How much cash is in the soup is the Fed's job, not the president's or Congress'.

Pesonally I don't think interest rates have risen enough yet. With a housing bubble about to bust rates should have been risen a year ago to slow the rising home prices. Just a peice of advice: If you have property to flip do it now.

Predicting what interest rates will do is notoriously complicated and not many have done it accurately. I agree the housing market seems to high; but who knows how much legs it has. People thought stocks were too high in 1996, they doubled again before the correction in 1999-2000

 

[Stinger]

Hmmm. The tax increase was passed in 1993 ...

GDP in constant (2000) dollars. Source: Bureau of Econ Analysis, Dept of Commerc. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm. Percent is increase from prior year.

1993 7532.7 2.67%
1994 7835.5 4.02%
1995 8031.7 2.50%
1996 8328.9 3.70%
1997 8703.5 4.50%
1998 9066.9 4.18%
1999 9470.3 4.45%
2000 9817.0 3.66%

That doesn't look like a real stalled economy to me.

Yep for 1994 and the effects came due in 1995. Republicans took over and began repealing it.

If Clinton thought taxes were too high, I didn't see that, but in terms of economic performance, clearly the taxes were not too high.

He stated it himself. And if there is one thing we have learned you don't tax yourself out of debt you grow yourself out of debt.

I agree lower taxes are better for an economy, but not when the Govt has to borrow money from our kids to fund itself.

Borrowing is better than taxing. Borrowing is short term, and if we have repsonsible policies in effect that encourage growth, and not punish it like higher taxes, then we grow out of debt.

What time period are you talking about? The Republican tax cuts or 2000-2003 caused a 20% drop in federal income tax revenues (I posted the data earlier)

Slower growth, the largest ever attack on the United States and a war on terrorism caused the mild recession we had. The economy was on the slide already in 2000 revenues were already dropping as the Dot.com bubble hit. The tax cuts kept it mild and have enable a great recovery.

Clinton vetoed Republican attempts at tax cuts which would have thrown us into deficits, as it did when Bush got into power in 2000.

Clinton signed the tax cuts, which spurred the economy and increased revenues, while stomping his feet for higher spending, spending which would have smashed the surplus we had.

Earlier you say Clinton thought he raised taxes too high, here you are saying he was trying to raise them higher. Which is it?

Both. He STILL needed more money to pass the spending promises he bought votes with.

 

[Iriemon]

Yep for 1994 and the effects came due in 1995. Republicans took over and began repealing it.

What? The tax increase was passed in '93. The Clinton/Democrat tax increase (which made the top tax rate 39%) was "repealed" in 2001. 2002-2004 is when the effects of the repeal came due -- Federal revenues plummeted and the deficits skyrocketed.

He stated it himself. And if there is one thing we have learned you don't tax yourself out of debt you grow yourself out of debt.

I have never seen Clinton say he thought his tax rate was too high, I'd be interested in reading it in context if you could give me a source.

I think what we have learned is that if your revenues from taxes are lower than what is spent, you have deficits. In fact, however, in 93 the tax rate was increased from 31 to 39%; the deficits immediately began to decline, by 2000, for one brief, shining moment, the Govt stopped borrowing more money.

Borrowing is better than taxing. Borrowing is short term, and if we have repsonsible policies in effect that encourage growth, and not punish it like higher taxes, then we grow out of debt.

Sure. Borrowing is great. Unless you are the one who has to pay it back. You have your opinion. I agree with this guy:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01

www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf

Of course, he said that before he borrowed $2.2 trillion that future generations will be forced to pay back (since Bush now doesn't even pretend he's going to be able to balance the budget).

Slower growth, the largest ever attack on the United States and a war on terrorism caused the mild recession we had. The economy was on the slide already in 2000 revenues were already dropping as the Dot.com bubble hit. The tax cuts kept it mild and have enable a great recovery.

Great. We now have a robust, growing economy. Republicans tell us that all the time. When are they going to stop borrowing from our children and grandchildren? We owe them this kind of responsibility.

Clinton signed the tax cuts, which spurred the economy and increased revenues, while stomping his feet for higher spending, spending which would have smashed the surplus we had.

What? Clinton signed the tax increase in 1993, which every Republican voted against (it passed by one vote in the Senate with Gore voting pro tem). The Democrats paid dearly for that bit of political courage in 1994.

That increased the top income tax rate to 39%, which the Republicans tried to cut but Clinton threated to veto if they did. The Republicans finally got their way when Bush was elected. With tragic results for those concerned about fiscal responsibility.

Both. He STILL needed more money to pass the spending promises he bought votes with.

Spending grew an average of 3.3% during Clintons tenure. In large part because he regularly exercised his veto and line item veto power. Spending has grow 6.4% annually since 2000. Bush has never vetoed Republican lard once.

 

[Stinger]

What? The tax increase was passed in '93. The Clinton/Democrat tax increase (which made the top tax rate 39%) was "repealed" in 2001. 2002-2004 is when the effects of the repeal came due -- Federal revenues plummeted and the deficits skyrocketed.

Yes for the 1994 budget and the effects on the economy began to be felt later in that year and on into 1995. At a time when GDP should have been soaring, having inherited a recovering economy he stifled growth and revenues with his tax increase.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial]Using the Washington University Macro Model, a computer simulation of the economy, researchers concluded that the recovery from the 1990-91 recession has not been as strong as it might have been without the tax increase. Among the effects: [/FONT]

• [FONT=Helvetica, Arial]
  [*]Economic output from 1993 through 1996 was $208 billion less than it would have been -- a loss equal to nearly $2,100 per household.
  [*]The gross domestic product would have grown $66 billion more over the period than it actually did.
  [*]A total of 1.2 million more jobs would have been created.
  [*]Potential employee wages and salaries were reduced over the 1993-1996 period by $112 billion in today's dollars.
  [*]The growth in real personal disposable income over the same period was reduced by $264 million in today's dollars.[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial]The 1993 tax increase was supposed to reduce the budget deficit, but partly due to its ill effects on the economy, it brought in only 49 percent of the new revenues predicted by the Congressional Budget Office................................
[/FONT]


[FONT=Helvetica, Arial]During this recovery, the gross domestic product has increased less than half as much as the average during three previous long recoveries -- during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Industrial production and total employment have increased just over half as much, and unemployment has declined by less than half the number during the previous expansions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial]http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pd/economy/ecoa4b.html
[/FONT]

I have never seen Clinton say he thought his tax rate was too high, I'd be interested in reading it in context if you could give me a source.

Where were you then, it was WIDELY reported.

"Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
--Bill Clinton (Reuters, 10/17/95)

I think what we have learned is that if your revenues from taxes are lower than what is spent, you have deficits.

Well DUH. I think we knew that all along.

In fact, however, in 93 the tax rate was increased from 31 to 39%; the deficits immediately began to decline, by 2000, for one brief, shining moment, the Govt stopped borrowing more money.

They were declining before then because growth was increasing as the economy was recovering from recession and revenues were increasing as a result. What we have learned is you don't tax your way out of deficits you GROW your way out of deficits. And what else we have learned is you don't tax yourself into growth.

Sure. Borrowing is great. Unless you are the one who has to pay it back.

I borrow to buy my house and I am the one who has to pay it back and it is still great. It's when borrowing and spending get out of hand that it is bad.

You have your opinion. I agree with this guy:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01

OK, so let's grow the economy and end the deficits. If you want to make the case that increasing taxes increases economic growth I'd like to hear it because I know of no economist with his reputation that would suggest any such thing.

Of course, he said that before he borrowed $2.2 trillion that future generations will be forced to pay back (since Bush now doesn't even pretend he's going to be able to balance the budget).

And before our fanancial markets were attacked and before we went to war. But if the Democrats had a plan to balance the budget why did they never explain what it was?

Great. We now have a robust, growing economy. Republicans tell us that all the time. When are they going to stop borrowing from our children and grandchildren? We owe them this kind of responsibility.

Are you saying Democrats never borrow?

What? Clinton signed the tax increase in 1993, which every Republican voted against (it passed by one vote in the Senate with Gore voting pro tem).

Yes an rightfully so, had Clinton done NOTHING as far as the economy we would have had higher growth and higher revenues and more income in the pockets of the working citizens.

The Democrats paid dearly for that bit of political courage in 1994.

It doesn't take courage to raise the taxes of the minority in order to try and get the votes of the majority and they rightfully paid for it.

That increased the top income tax rate to 39%, which the Republicans tried to cut but Clinton threated to veto if they did.

Sure it made great political fodder for them, you actually fell for it? But then Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and tax cuts which kept the economy growing and put money in everyones pocket.

The Republicans finally got their way when Bush was elected. With tragic results for those concerned about fiscal responsibility.

Actually it kept a economic downturn quite mild and set up the growth we are seeing now. Had they increased taxes as the Democrats wanted to the economy would have worsened, incomes would have declined and the recovery would have taken much longer. Are you seriously suggesting that a tax increase at the time of a downturn was the proper course to get the economy moving? That is shear folly.

Spending grew an average of 3.3% during Clintons tenure.

Because the Republicans refused to enact his spending request which were always higher (except for years he was contained by the previous years budget agreements). He also admantly oppose wel-fare reform which also dramatically cut federal spending and vowed to repeal if re-elected (which of course he did not and then tried to take credit for it).

In large part because he regularly exercised his veto and line item veto power.

Hardly. He and the congress also inherited the peace dividend which help ease spending.

Spending has grow 6.4% annually since 2000. Bush has never vetoed Republican lard once.

Oh I agree spending should be cut. But to believe that Kerry with a Democrat congress would have spent less is absurd.

So tell me what spending you would propose we cut?

 

[Stinger]

Whether we were actually in a "recession" is a debatable point. GDP never fell in a fiscal year, in 2001, the worst year, it went up .7%. There was definitely a slowdown; employment went from about 4 to 6%, though that is historically extremely low for a recession (unemployment hit 9% in '91, for example)

GDP in constant 2000 dollars, % change. Source: Dept. Commerce Bur. Econ. Analysis. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

2000 9817.0 3.66%
2001 9890.7 0.75%
2002 10048.8 1.60%
2003 10320.6 2.70%
2004 10755.7 4.22%

No it is not debatable. And why do you use ANNUAL figures instead of quarterly? Sure there is an arbitrary rule that 3 quarters of negative growth signal recession. But the fact is the economy was indecline going into 2000 with negative growth in the 3rd quarter, barely breathing in the 4th and negative again in the first quarter of 2001. Bush's policies did not go into effect until the 3rd quarter and began to be seen in the 4th and all proceeding. Of course during that time we had the worst attack against US in modern history and a war.


1st GDP percent change based on current dollars
2nd GDP percent change based on chained 2000 dollars

1999q1 5.1 3.4
1999q2 4.8 3.4
1999q3 6.2 4.8
1999q4 9.1 7.3
2000q1 4.7 1.0
2000q2 8.3 6.4
2000q3 1.6 -0.5
2000q4 3.8 2.1
2001q1 2.8 -0.5
2001q2 4.4 1.2
2001q3 0.2 -1.4
2001q4 3.6 1.6
2002q1 4.3 2.7
2002q2 3.7 2.2
2002q3 3.9 2.4
2002q4 2.4 0.2
2003q1 4.8 1.7
2003q2 4.8 3.7
2003q3 9.3 7.2
2003q4 5.5 3.6
2004q1 8.1 4.3
2004q2 7.5 3.5
2004q3 5.3 4.0
2004q4 6.1 3.3
2005q1 7.0 3.8
2005q2 5.9 3.4

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

With growth projected at over 4% again this year, we are well out of the "recession"

And that growth is cutting the deficit projects in leaps and bounds.

Some argue, with good reason IMO, that there is overspeculation in the housing market now. What has Mr. Bush done to prevent that? What should he be doing?

Nothing.

 

[Stinger]

I just looked at your profile....

You're 48 years old and THIS is how you respond?

My anger is turning to pity.

Hey I think Ms. Sheehan is over forty and just listen to her.