Thomas Sowell knocks down yet another lefty meme: the Bush tax cuts were a major cause of deficits. (Clinton, September 11)

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

You bet! If we could actually have a $200 billion surplus that would be earmarked for debt reduction, I actually would not mind paying Clinton era taxes. However, I doubt very much that-

the current government would ever cut spending to Clinton era spending
the current government would actually apply a "surplus" to the debt

When has our government ever done anything responsible with increased revenues? They just fall all over themselves finding ways to blow it. They need the constraints of a balanced budget amendment, as they are addicted to spending.

"If we maintain our fiscal discipline, using the surplus to pay down the debt and using the savings to strengthen Social Security, America will entirely pay off the national debt by 2015"
- Bill Clinton, 1999

But you may have been too busy at the time with Lewinsky scandal to even take note of that, much less the republicans only thinking tax cuts to "take care of the surplus". And then, we have the stupidity that shows up that government would never cut spending... I guess we know why. Because, creating deficits is conducive to promoting ideology, to kill programs that you never supported. You can't achieve that with reduced deficits and debt reductions.

But, it does sound interesting that we cut spending to 1999 levels. That way, we also get to pretend that the economy never grew to its current size, and population never increased by 15%, and Baby Boomers are still in their 50s inconsequential to the burden on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, as are nearly 2 million veterans who now need care following two extended wars for decades to come.

But hey, if Ostrich syndrome works for you, may be it really works in reality?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

You bet! If we could actually have a $200 billion surplus that would be earmarked for debt reduction, I actually would not mind paying Clinton era taxes. However, I doubt very much that-

the current government would ever cut spending to Clinton era spending
the current government would actually apply a "surplus" to the debt

When has our government ever done anything responsible with increased revenues? They just fall all over themselves finding ways to blow it. They need the constraints of a balanced budget amendment, as they are addicted to spending.

You're right and the Republicans will never let the defense spending go back to Clinton Era spending.

[buzzards27]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

You can't deny that there was robust economic growth from 2003-2006. Anybody who wanted a job could get one.

At what cost? Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

The indirect costs are difficult to impossible to measure. How do you really tell what impact the Iraq war had on energy prices paid by US consumers? That was one of the things Stiglitz claimed to have calculated.

Indirect costs are the self-professed fiscal conservatives' nightmare. In fact, that it is difficult to explain and compute, helps make such idiocies, of assumptions that Iraq war would cost $50B, no, $200 billion... no more than $800 billion, period, override sanity and fiscal responsibility.

But, when you put just a little effort, however, you can see gaping holes with facts peeping through. So, the least you could do is NOT dismiss what Stiglitz attempted, as did the article I linked for you to read (and doubt that you did). Instead invest a little of your efforts to see how a policy not only affects NOW but into the future. Because THAT is how reality works, not our wishful thinking.

A good starting point would be: Did the prolong engagement with wars create an additional cost burden on veteran care? You bet it did. Why won't you choose to ignore this cost? Why would you choose to ignore that when you borrow and spend, that you don't need to worry about interest on that debt? I could go on, but by being repetitive. Hopefully, you got the point.

Plus, what about indirect benefits.

NONE. In fact, we created another hole for self in the future. We didn't learn with Cuba. We didn't learn with Iran. We didn't learn with Pakistan. We didn't learn with "Saddam is our friend Iraq". We didn't learn with "Afghanistani freedom fighters deserve next shuttle mention to be dedicated to them"... and now, we've handed Iraq to Iran on a platter instead of letting them kill each other or whatever they wanted to do to themselves.

Maybe all those guys like al zarqawi would have come to the US instead of Iraq. Who knows. How do you measure that. What if I claim that was a $20 trillion benefit to the US.

You can claim whatever. Facts won't be affected, nor would the consequences. I care more for 2 million veterans that served, thousands sacrificing their lives one way or another, and will be suffering for decades. No "profit" is worth it. Heck, we complain about being bankrupt to fix health care system of this country but $800 billion for freedom to Iraqis spells greatness.

It's all an exercise in crapology.

And thanks for providing a word to summarize my disgust.

[gwynedd1]

You can't do business style cost accounting at the national level or any macro economic level. Do you think Robinson Crusoe is going to calculate financial loses ?

Nations have opportunity costs. The cost is what what else we could have done.

I think the cost of the two wars are pretty obvious.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Indirect costs are the self-professed fiscal conservatives' nightmare. In fact, that it is difficult to explain and compute, helps make such idiocies, of assumptions that Iraq war would cost $50B, no, $200 billion... no more than $800 billion, period, override sanity and fiscal responsibility.

But, when you put just a little effort, however, you can see gaping holes with facts peeping through. So, the least you could do is NOT dismiss what Stiglitz attempted, as did the article I linked for you to read (and doubt that you did). Instead invest a little of your efforts to see how a policy not only affects NOW but into the future. Because THAT is how reality works, not our wishful thinking.

A good starting point would be: Did the prolong engagement with wars create an additional cost burden on veteran care? You bet it did. Why won't you choose to ignore this cost? Why would you choose to ignore that when you borrow and spend, that you don't need to worry about interest on that debt? I could go on, but by being repetitive. Hopefully, you got the point.


NONE. In fact, we created another hole for self in the future. We didn't learn with Cuba. We didn't learn with Iran. We didn't learn with Pakistan. We didn't learn with "Saddam is our friend Iraq". We didn't learn with "Afghanistani freedom fighters deserve next shuttle mention to be dedicated to them"... and now, we've handed Iraq to Iran on a platter instead of letting them kill each other or whatever they wanted to do to themselves.


You can claim whatever. Facts won't be affected, nor would the consequences. I care more for 2 million veterans that served, thousands sacrificing their lives one way or another, and will be suffering for decades. No "profit" is worth it. Heck, we complain about being bankrupt to fix health care system of this country but $800 billion for freedom to Iraqis spells greatness.


And thanks for providing a word to summarize my disgust.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm just saying that if you make up numbers to support your side, I can do the same to support mine. BTW, you never did say whether you subscribe to Stiglitz's $3 trillion estimate, Marketwatch's $4 trillion estimate, or Stiglitz's $5 trillion estimate.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

This is something that has always bugged me. There are two obvious causes of our debt. By far and away, the number one cause is over spending. A secondary, lesser cause was the crash of 2008, which caused about a 10 percent drop in revenue. But that wouldn't have been a crisis except for the spending.

The Bush tax cuts had zero, zip, nada to do with it. When are we going to get some honesty about the national debt?

I'll show you what happened and debunk these other clowns at the same time.

Regarding the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.....

Originally Posted by buzzards27

The entire debt for WWII were repaid in five years.

Uh, there's a Marshall Plan in effect right now?

The US Dollar is the sole international reserve currency and the sole international currency of trade?

Rubles were traded on the world market in the post-WW II Era?

Wrong.

You can contrast the economic conditions then and now, but not compare them --- because a comparison can only be made between two (or more) things that are similar.

Would you like a dictionary link?

Originally Posted by buzzards27

We haven't even begun to see the post war costs of bush's wars. Equipment recovery and refurbishing, re-arming, rebuilding, VA medical bills, etc. I've seen post war estimate in the trillions in the next decade.

Originally Posted by tablemtn

The Iraq war required a boost in many categories of spending aside from the war appropriation itself, from increased payroll/pension spending to future VA costs. That ends up being a lot of money spread out over many years.

I thought government spending was good?

Isn't that what you all claim? Keynes is God? In the Flesh?

I get it, government spending is good, if, and only if, it is welfare spending (which doesn't produce anything).

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I wonder if hawkeye is willing to give you $400 billion dollars in defense spending if he truly believes we have a spending problem.

I'm wondering if you're willing to forfeit your life-style and standard of living.

So, are you? Willing to forgo all that you know and love? Because, you know, if you are, then you can end the present conflicts, plus all future US conflicts (and there will be many more in an attempt to retain your life-style and standard of living).

Originally Posted by wutitiz

If we had never gone to Iraq, and never enacted the Bush tax cuts, we would still be in terrible shape. Maybe we would have $15 trillion debt instead of $16 trillion. And who's to say that Obama would not have spent the extra $1 trillion on 'free' Obamaphones anyway.

Ah, finally we stumble onto the correct answer.

Yes, indeed, that spending saved your asses. You can actually see that in the data.

Regarding the CBO (and other sources).....

Originally Posted by MTAtech

However, the CBO forcasted that had taxes not been raised, the U.S. would have been running continuous surpluses -- paying off the entire debt by 2006.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

We should remember that the CBO projected that the debt would be nearly paid off by now.

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Actually, according to my link above, "In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected under a current law baseline that the federal government would erase its debt in 2006. By 2011, the U.S. government would be $2.3 trillion in the black."

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The graphic (copy below) is clearly marked in the graphic Cbpp.org, which is the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Seriously, nobody gives a damn what the CBO says. The CBO fantasizes a lot and their projections are always grotesquely overly optimistic.

The CBO -- who were too incompetent to see the recession coming straight at them -- have been wrong about every single one of their projections over the last 15 years. They underestimated the cost of Medicare Part D, they underestimated the cost of Obamacare, and they underestimated the cost of all the regulations that have been implemented in the 12 years.

In 2010 the CBO said your unemployment rate would be 5% by October 2012. That was an impossibility, but obviously that didn't stop the CBO from making (another) failed projection.

Who here seriously believes Americans are going to allow the government to get a surplus in tax revenues every year?

Not gonna happen. The people would be clamoring for a tax cut, and they'd elect anyone to the House who promised a tax cut --- so let's not get stupid.

Why is there a need to consult biased sources with an agenda to post graphs?

Don't you economic wizards know where to find economic data?

Now, about the tax cuts....

The following claims were made:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

A quick review of this piece reveals the crux of this author's fallacy.

In fact, tax revenues fell immediately after the cuts but rebounded a few years later during the housing bubble.




i addressed this very fallacy in this thread:

//www.city-data.com/forum/27225099-post62.html

Originally Posted by MTAtech

According to the graphic I posted in post #8, the bush era tax cuts were the #1 cause, the economic downturn was #2 and the wars number 3. Not really that far off from a factual standpoint

Originally Posted by MTAtech

How could the tax-cuts be responsible for higher revenue when revenue dropped immediately after they went into effect? Moreover, it wasn't until 2007 that real revenues came close to 2000 revenues -- even though GDP was higher.

So, to believe that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues has not only NOT been proven, it clearly a zombie myth -- a myth that no matter how many times it's killed, someone will get up and repeat it as if it was fact.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

FYI, there was roughly a $750 billion drop in actual FY2009 revenue vs the budget projection bush made before the crash. That is only one year of five years of reduced revenue caused by the recession.

First...

Originally Posted by MTAtech

I couldn't have asked for a better example of Mr. Sowell's slight of hand.

Your sleight of hand is a superb example of NAZI-style propaganda.

Let's look at Capital Gains taxes paid and the tax rate from 1981-2008

1981..... $12,852.....15.9%
1982..... $12,900.....14.3%
1983..... $18,700.....15.2%
1984..... $21,453.....15.3%
1985..... $26,460.....15.4%
1986..... $52,914.....16.1%
1987..... $33,714.....22.7%
1988..... $38,866.....23.9%
1989..... $35,258.....22.9%
1990..... $27,829.....22.5%
1991..... $24,903.....22.3%
1992 .....$28,983.....22.9%
1993..... $36,112.....23.7%
1994..... $36,243.....23.7%
1995..... $44,254.....24.6%
1996..... $66,396.....25.5%
1997..... $79,305.....21.7%
1998..... $89,069.....19.6%
1999... $111,821.... 20.2%
2000... $127,297 ...19.8%
2001..... $65,668....18.8%
2002..... $49,122....18.3%
2003..... $51,340.....15.9%
2004..... $73,213.....14.7%
2005..... $102,174....14.8%
2006..... $117,793....14.8%
2007..... $137,141....14.8%
2008..... $68,791. ..13.8%

Source: Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis (December 30, 2010 and January 14, 2010).

Capital Gains taxes paid are in Millions of Dollars. As everyone can plainly see, Capital Gains tax revenues increase when the tax rate is lower and decrease when the tax rate is higher, and also that Capital Gains taxes paid (obviously) track closely to economic performance....a performing economy results in Capital Gains, while a non-performing economy does not.

Fact: The Bush Tax Cuts did not result in a drop in Capital Gains tax revenues.

Next issue: Personal Income Taxes.

We're looking at the year, the number of tax returns filed (in the thousands) and total income in $Millions.

1999..... 127,075..... $7,640,500
2000..... 129,374..... $8,031,960
2001..... 130,255..... $7,575,331
2002..... 130,076..... $7,313,297
2003..... 130,424..... $7,365,567
2004..... 132,226..... $7,849,444
2005..... 134,373..... $8,303,323
2006..... 138,395..... $8,698,293
2007..... 142,979..... $9,149,032
2008..... 142,451..... $8,384,460

Source: Statistics of Income -- Individual Income Tax Returns (IRS Publication 1304), various years. Source: IRS, Statistics of Income Division, July 2010.

We get some hints, but the data itself is not very satisfying for several reasons, mostly due to the the number of returns filed. Better would be to look at total income per tax return....

1999..... $60,126
2000..... $62,083
2001..... $58,158
2002..... $56,223
2003..... $56,474
2004..... $59,364
2005..... $61,793
2006..... $62,851
2007..... $63,989
2008..... $58,859

Now what do you see?

Total income declines and for the most part is stagnant or flat.

So, gosh, why doesn't someone ask a really friggin' stupid-ass question, like why did federal income tax revenues decline or not increase?

Still, total income is not necessarily appropriate here. Better would be wages and salaries, so let's look at that (same source)....

1999..... $42,027
2000..... $43,066
2001..... $42,609
2002..... $41,952
2003..... $41,718
2004..... $42,425
2005..... $42,296
2006..... $42,206
2007..... $42,430
2008..... $41,773

So, there you go. What can you say about salaries and wages?

They're most flat/stagnant, but then anyone who's been reading my posts would already know that. But, can we be reasonably certain this is the case? Sure, we need only to look at a larger period of time.....

1980.... . 93,902..... 4,291,287..... 3,527,005
1981.... . 95,396..... 4,273,009..... 3,519,932
1982.... . 95,337..... 4,277,107..... 3,491,690
1983.... . 96,321..... 4,375,197..... 3,555,035
1984.... . 99,439..... 4,620,309..... 3,744,776
1985..... 101,660..... 4,804,366..... 3,858,248
1986..... 103,045..... 5,069,618..... 3,989,836
1987..... 106,996..... 5,314,233..... 4,101,192
1988..... 109,708..... 5,662,345..... 4,255,072
1989..... 112,136..... 5,696,728..... 4,253,156
1990..... 113,717..... 5,665,750..... 4,282,011
1991..... 114,730..... 5,531,564..... 4,227,433
1992..... 113,605..... 5,623,650..... 4,305,604
1993..... 114,602..... 5,602,294..... 4,309,219
1994..... 115,943..... 5,733,599..... 4,397,263
1995..... 118,218..... 5,976,626..... 4,522,856
1996..... 120,351..... 6,282,924..... 4,633,847
1997..... 122,422..... 6,729,936..... 4,847,896
1998..... 124,771..... 7,221,902..... 5,124,690
1999..... 127,075..... 7,640,500..... 5,340,539
2000..... 129,374..... 8,031,960..... 5,571,580
2001..... 130,255..... 7,575,331..... 5,550,014
2002..... 130,076..... 7,313,297..... 5,457,005
2003..... 130,424..... 7,365,567..... 5,440,964
2004..... 132,226..... 7,849,444..... 5,609,738
2005..... 134,373..... 8,303,323..... 5,683,434
2006..... 138,395..... 8,698,293..... 5,841,130
2007..... 142,979..... 9,149,032..... 6,066,587
2008..... 142,451..... 8,384,460..... 5,950,635

That is the number of tax returns filed, the total income and then total salaries/wages. Again, that isn't very helpful in drawing comparisons, so we'll look at this same data on a per tax return basis....

1980 $45,700
1981 $44,792..... -1.99%
1982 $44,863..... 0.16%
1983 $45,423..... 1.25%
1984 $46,464..... 2.29%
1985 $47,259..... 1.71%
1986 $49,198..... 4.10%
1987 $49,668..... 0.95%
1988 $51,613..... 3.92%
1989 $50,802..... -1.57%
1990 $49,823..... -1.93%
1991 $48,214..... -3.23%
1992 $49,502..... 2.67%
1993 $48,885..... -1.25%
1994 $49,452..... 1.16%
1995 $50,556..... 2.23%
1996 $52,205..... 3.26%
1997 $54,973..... 5.30%
1998 $57,881..... 5.29%
1999 $60,126..... 3.88%
2000 $62,083..... 3.26%
2001 $58,158..... -6.32%
2002 $56,223..... -3.33%
2003 $56,474..... 0.45%
2004 $59,364..... 5.12%
2005 $61,793..... 4.09%
2006 $62,851..... 1.71%
2007 $63,989..... 1.81%
2008 $58,859..... -8.02%

That total income and the percentage increase or decrease in total income, and now wages and salaries and their corresponding percentage increase or decrease.....

1980 $37,560
1981 $36,898..... -1.76%
1982 $36,625..... -0.74%
1983 $36,908..... 0.77%
1984 $37,659..... 2.03%
1985 $37,952..... 0.78%
1986 $38,719..... 2.02%
1987 $38,330..... -1.00%
1988 $38,785..... 1.19%
1989 $37,929..... -2.21%
1990 $37,655..... -0.72%
1991 $36,847..... -2.15%
1992 $37,900..... 2.86%
1993 $37,602..... -0.79%
1994 $37,926..... 0.86%
1995 $38,259..... 0.88%
1996 $38,503..... 0.64%
1997 $39,600..... 2.85%
1998 $41,073..... 3.72%
1999 $42,027..... 2.32%
2000 $43,066..... 2.47%
2001 $42,609..... -1.06%
2002 $41,952..... -1.54%
2003 $41,718..... -0.56%
2004 $42,425..... 1.70%
2005 $42,296..... -0.31%
2006 $42,206..... -0.21%
2007 $42,430..... 0.53%
2008 $41,773..... -1.55%

What can you say about wages/salaries?

Wages have been stagnant or declining.

So, another really stupid friggin' question, is why would tax revenues increase if people's wages and salaries are declining or stagnant?

Going back to the CBO's fantastical projections on the National Debt, what can you say about that?

We can all say "bull-****."

The CBO's projections could only occur if the total income and wages/salaries continued to increase at 1990s rates.

And now.....the coup de grace....the most damning evidence of all.....

1995 118,218....,.... 842,237..... 869,980
1996 120,351......... 914,899..... 943,178
1997 122,422...../.. 991,979..... 1,022,532
1998 124,771..... 1,074,625..... 1,085,628
1999 127,075..... 1,171,905..... 1,179,209
2000 129,374..... 1,273,087..... 1,272,152
2001 130,255..... 1,134,951..... 1,125,065
2002 130,076..... 1,001,528....... 999,220
2003 130,424...... ..924,406....... 921,572
2004 132,226..... 1,007,950....... 996,172
2005 134,373..... 1,091,565..... 1,080,659
2006 138,395..... 1,156,458..... 1,144,729
2007 142,979..... 1,224,828..... 1,210,398
2008 142,451..... 1,106,933..... 1,080,063


.....what am I looking at?

You are looking at the number of tax returns, the total income tax owed before credits and the total income tax paid.

Again, not very satisfying, so let's break it down to total tax before credits per tax return and total tax per tax return......and then let's also look at the average marginal rates for each just for shats and giggles.....

1995 $50,556..... $7,124..... 14% .....$7,359..... 15%
1996 $52,205..... $7,602..... 15% .....$7,837..... 15%
1997 $54,973..... $8,103..... 15% .....$8,353..... 15%
1998 $57,881..... $8,613..... 15% .....$8,701..... 15%
1999 $60,126..... $9,222..... 15% .....$9,280..... 15%
2000 $62,083..... $9,840..... 16% .....$9,833..... 16%
2001 $58,158..... $8,713..... 15% .....$8,637..... 15%
2002 $56,223..... $7,700..... 14% .....$7,682..... 14%
2003 $56,474..... $7,088..... 13% .....$7,066..... 13%
2004 $59,364..... $7,623..... 13% .....$7,534..... 13%
2005 $61,793..... $8,123..... 13% .....$8,042..... 13%
2006 $62,851..... $8,356..... 13% .....$8,271..... 13%
2007 $63,989..... $8,566..... 13% .....$8,466..... 13%
2008 $58,859..... $7,771..... 13% .....$7,582..... 13%

Okay, that is total income, total tax before credit and average tax % and then tax after credit and average tax %.

Now comes wages/salaries, tax before credits, average tax rate, then tax paid an average tax rate......

1995 $38,259..... $7,124 .....19% .....$7,359 .....19%
1996 $38,503..... $7,602 .....20% .....$7,837 .....20%
1997 $39,600..... $8,103 .....20% .....$8,353 .....21%
1998 $41,073..... $8,613 .....21% .....$8,701..... 21%
1999 $42,027..... $9,222 .....22% .....$9,280..... 22%
2000 $43,066..... $9,840 .....23% .....$9,833 .....23%
2001 $42,609..... $8,713 .....20% .....$8,637 .....20%
2002 $41,952..... $7,700 .....18% .....$7,682 .....18%
2003 $41,718..... $7,088 .....17% .....$7,066 .....17%
2004 $42,425..... $7,623 .....18% .....$7,534..... 18%
2005 $42,296..... $8,123 .....19% .....$8,042 .....19%
2006 $42,206..... $8,356 .....20% .....$8,271 .....20%
2007 $42,430..... $8,566 .....20% .....$8,466 .....20%
2008 $41,773..... $7,771 .....19% .....$7,582 .....18%






Questions, anyone?

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

It is understandable that an economy in recession will show lower revenue. We can discount 1982-83, 1991-92, 2001 and 2008-2009 for that. Now go ahead and explain why federal tax revenue was lower than its previous peak in 1984, 1985 (and barely over 1981 level in 1986), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 (and barely over 2000 level in 2006 AND 2007). Were we in a recession ALL those years?

This calls for my of my favorite all-time City Data quotes.....

Originally Posted by summers73

Einstein's Ghost lost quite a few dozen IQ points through the whole body to spirit transformation process.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

PS. I do admire the fact that it has been EXTREMELY rare of anybody to try and respond to the numbers I presented.

Well, the numbers you present are garbage.

Originally Posted by ThinkBeforeYouVote

So Sowell, an avowed Laffer-lover, writes an Op-Ed with no real evidence whatsoever to support his hypothesis and you consider it something of value?

He had lots of real evidence....to bad you didn't see it.

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

Sowell is both a liar and a hack.

So what does that make you?

Stomping...

Mircea

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

I'm not claiming anything. I'm just saying that if you make up numbers to support your side, I can do the same to support mine. BTW, you never did say whether you subscribe to Stiglitz's $3 trillion estimate, Marketwatch's $4 trillion estimate, or Stiglitz's $5 trillion estimate.

You don't have to subscribe to ANY of them because they are estimates THAT ACCEPT AND DESCRIBE the premise, but several times more than the number you want to support. The question is, why do you want to believe that the cost of the war(s) has no impact after it is done with? Seriously.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Mircea

This calls for my of my favorite all-time City Data quotes.....
Well, the numbers you present are garbage.
Stomping...

On logic.

But of course, one-liners don't require that.

[Maabus1999]

Mircea,

All your info really proved to me is that "mean" income is stagnant yet GDP (outside of recessions) has continued to go up. So it was a 5 page proof of the wealth inquality gap continually increasing over the past several years. Also, being we have a progressive income tax system with a hell of a complicated tax code, you really can't look at income numbers and come up with any good conclusion. Instead, it is better to look at the macro number as government tax revenue percentages in relation to GDP which factors in all sources (including those outside the income tax).

Plus anyone insulting the CBO who hires many PhD's to do some of their work doesn't really lend much credibility to me either.