Travel Update

Done. Back home … to return by flight for a few days next week. But I get home for family, class, church, and a CSO concert … and a belated birthday celebratory dinner. 

For those who might be curious, I got 69 mpg for the 340 miles I drove Thursday evening … and 60 mpg for the 500 today … for a 63.3 aggregate. Not a whole lot better than the way out (which was just under 62). The reason for the drop today was the temperature was 15 degrees lower and the pavement was wet for much of the drive from the various snowfall regions. During the drive Thursday the average was 74 until I hit the snow. By the time I gave up it was down to 69. During the evening the temperature dropped (and was got colder as I progressed West). 

I’ll catch up on comments and do links this weekend well. 

11 responses to “Travel Update

  1. JA,
    So. You think that the best way to lower the deficit is to raise taxes? On what basis?

  2. JA,
    And … while we had an enjoyable dinner out Friday (not at our chosen spot), circumstances conspired so that our birthday feast (at a wonderful little Sushi place) is still to come.

  3. Mark,

    I think you missed the point of Klein’s post, which is that the debate is not “on the level.”

    I *love* sushi. Enjoy!

  4. JA,
    Hmm, I thought the “not on the level” part of the linked essay quite ironic, in that his presentation was not on the level in talking about GOP spending just as well much as those he criticized. After all, the “tax cut” part of the graph noted pretends that nobody on the GOP side wants to cut spending … which certainly isn’t the case.

    As noted a few weeks ago, the only effective way to cut deficits are to cut spending (judging from attempts made by countries over the last 30-40 years). The most successful deficit attacks include aggressive spending cuts linked with small to moderate tax reductions. That’s what works. So, I’d offer that if you talk about anything else you’re just making crap up.

    Of course if the irony was unintended, well, that would be an unfortunate reflection on the writer.

  5. See Mark already said he is ok with a 70%+ dishonesty level here provided it falls along his ideology. If, say, taxes are raised in 2019 it will always be to pay for Obama’s stimulus package or health care (provided a Republoican is in office then, if a Democrat then whatever they are doing). It will never be to pay for the Gulf War, Bush’s tax cuts, Medicare D or anything a Republican ever did. Likewise taxes always go up with Democrats regardless of actual taxes. Hence Obama’s a tax raiser even as he cuts deals that result in Mark paying less taxes.

  6. Boonton,
    Whereas Mr Boonton will maintain that because the tax cuts were sustained he and his party were all for them all along and that his party (and he) apparently don’t want to raise taxes to deal with deficits as their primary budget reconciliation method.

  7. After all, the “tax cut” part of the graph noted pretends that nobody on the GOP side wants to cut spending … which certainly isn’t the case.

    It’s not “pretending” anything. It’s a graph about reality, not about what Republicans claim they “want.” In reality, they cut taxes but did not cut spending.

    As noted a few weeks ago, the only effective way to cut deficits are to cut spending (judging from attempts made by countries over the last 30-40 years).

    WTF? The deficit = taxes – spending. Either increasing taxes OR cutting spending reduces the deficit BY DEFINITION. (Unless you believe that tax cuts increase revenues, which is obviously untrue.)

    The most successful deficit attacks include aggressive spending cuts linked with small to moderate tax reductions.

    Bill Clinton’s was pretty damn successful and it combined spending cuts with tax hikes on the very rich. What is this weird religious belief you have that tax cuts help the deficit?

  8. JA,

    The deficit = taxes – spending. Either increasing taxes OR cutting spending reduces the deficit BY DEFINITION.

    True but irrelevant. I was noting an (academic) study which examined attempts to control deficits over the last 30 years in first/second world countries. The “attempt” was examined and scored as to whether on how it reduced the deficit with relation to taxes and spending and finally with how successful it was. Very few were successful which chose the “tax” route and the most successful strategies contained modest tax cuts and focused on spending cuts. An explanation for this includes the observation that when taxes have increased there is a tendency to spend more which has been (in practice) hard to resist.

    (Unless you believe that tax cuts increase revenues, which is obviously untrue.)

    Not generically true … although true in today’s economy. There are two ways in which this is false Raise taxes to a level which stifles growth and in the long run you will reap less tax income and secondly if you raise taxes to a level which causes negative growth (such as triggering a depression) then you get less income.

  9. True but irrelevant. I was noting an (academic) study which examined attempts to control deficits over the last 30 years in first/second world countries.

    I’m all for combining spending cuts with tax cuts, but it’s hilarious that you bring up historical results w/r/t tax hikes leading to spending hikes but completely ignore the historical results of tax cuts NOT leading to spending cuts.

    Not generically true … although true in today’s economy.

    WTF? All of the sudden you believe in stimulus?

    Raise taxes to a level which stifles growth and in the long run you will reap less tax income and secondly if you raise taxes to a level which causes negative growth (such as triggering a depression) then you get less income.

    I agree completely, but this is a red herring since we’re nowhere near those levels, as historical evidence clearly demonstrates. The top brackets have been way, way higher and we’ve had great growth in many times in the past.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>