UConn James Posted December 5, 2012 Author Posted December 5, 2012 Yes, they worked to funnel more money to the 1%. However, with respect to economic growth, the worst performance of any president since WW2. If they paid more in taxes ... how in the flying f)$& do you rationalize that they made out?! Even the Left's talking points on the Bush Tax Cuts has changed very recently. Maybe you ought to follow suit. http://www.american.com/archive/2012/december/the-lefts-flip-flop-on-the-bush-tax-cuts In other words, if the Bush cuts actually were just “tax cuts for the rich,” then their expiration couldn’t hurt the middle class. On the other hand, if their expiration would hurt the middle class, then characterizing them as “tax cuts for the rich” was a false message all along. Now that the election is behind us and the fiscal cliff confronts us, it turns out that the expiration of the Bush cuts (i.e., the tax side of the "fiscal cliff") would strike a severe blow to the middle class. Opponents of the Bush tax cuts have therefore done a silent flip-flop on whether the cuts helped the middle class. Sticking with their old mantra would risk shoving the middle class over the cliff. Tax cuts for the rich, said Democrats while Bush was president. BAD BAD BAD. NOW, tho, they admit that the Bush tax cuts helped the middle class and they ought to be continued. So... which one is it? Bush also had that whole 9/11 thingie to deal with. And retasking a large section of the federal govt to meet the current threat. No big, there, huh?!?? Burst of the Clinton-era dotcom bubble? Kiddie play, sez TPS/connor/whatever you're calling yourself this week before you get banned or shamed into disappearing. Try looking at it from the macrocosm. Try looking at the pictures if you don't understand all the words. Your penny-ante stevestojan is simply asinine.
TPS Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 Go back and read over starting with page 9. The summaries and charts should educate you. Not that any of it turned out to be accurate, but that's what the CBO thought at the time. Yes, and if you read the dang report it says on-budget balance goes into deficit (from the tax cuts) but the off-budget items (which they say 3/4 is due to the SS trust fund surplus) generate an overall projected surplus. It turns out their projections weren't all that good and we had deficits even with the SS surplus added in. If you accept their projections dude, then read what they wrote about the impact from the tax cuts--they wre projected to decrease revenues by $1.2 trillion! You're hopeless.
TPS Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 If they paid more in taxes ... how in the flying f)$& do you rationalize that they made out?! Even the Left's talking points on the Bush Tax Cuts has changed very recently. Maybe you ought to follow suit. http://www.american....e-bush-tax-cuts Tax cuts for the rich, said Democrats while Bush was president. BAD BAD BAD. NOW, tho, they admit that the Bush tax cuts helped the middle class and they ought to be continued. So... which one is it? Bush also had that whole 9/11 thingie to deal with. And retasking a large section of the federal govt to meet the current threat. No big, there, huh?!?? Burst of the Clinton-era dotcom bubble? Kiddie play, sez TPS/connor/whatever you're calling yourself this week before you get banned or shamed into disappearing. Try looking at it from the macrocosm. Try looking at the pictures if you don't understand all the words. Your penny-ante stevestojan is simply asinine. My aren't we testy. That is one illogical argument, "if they paid more taxes, how'd they make out?" Anyone who earns more income will pay more taxes. You jokers are worried about the deficit, but you are more concerned that the top 1% not pay taxes? They had an increase of $660 billion in income from 2000-07, and paid a 12% rate on that additional income. but you'd be happier if they paid no taxes? Then you want the deficit down? You tell me how will you rationalize that? No one denies that everyone got tax breaks, so you are creating a straw man. However, since 51% of all income goes to the top 20%, then the biggest impact on generating the deficit in revenues comes from their tax savings. That shouldn't be difficult to understand. The argument now is whether to let them all expire or just the top rate expire. Again, you create a strawman argument. And, yes, higher expenditures also helped drive the deficits, which is why the CBO was so far off. Though their use of "dynamic scoring" was also part of the error. Flavor of the week name, that's funny. I've been here as long as anyone--before PPP was even born, and using the same handle. So take a hike sonny.
SDS Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 If they paid more in taxes ... how in the flying f)$& do you rationalize that they made out?! Even the Left's talking points on the Bush Tax Cuts has changed very recently. Maybe you ought to follow suit. http://www.american....e-bush-tax-cuts Tax cuts for the rich, said Democrats while Bush was president. BAD BAD BAD. NOW, tho, they admit that the Bush tax cuts helped the middle class and they ought to be continued. So... which one is it? Bush also had that whole 9/11 thingie to deal with. And retasking a large section of the federal govt to meet the current threat. No big, there, huh?!?? Burst of the Clinton-era dotcom bubble? Kiddie play, sez TPS/connor/whatever you're calling yourself this week before you get banned or shamed into disappearing. Try looking at it from the macrocosm. Try looking at the pictures if you don't understand all the words. Your penny-ante stevestojan is simply asinine. TPS is a good guy. I'm not really sure he deserved this type of retort... JMO. My aren't we testy. That is one illogical argument, "if they paid more taxes, how'd they make out?" Anyone who earns more income will pay more taxes. You jokers are worried about the deficit, but you are more concerned that the top 1% not pay taxes? They had an increase of $660 billion in income from 2000-07, and paid a 12% rate on that additional income. but you'd be happier if they paid no taxes? Then you want the deficit down? You tell me how will you rationalize that? I think the question is which one is the chicken and which one is the egg. Did the tax cuts allow them to earn an additional $660B that they normally wouldn't have or would that have occured regardless? Personally, I have grown very, very discontent with the conservative position that every problem deserves a tax cut and that every dollar paid in taxes is rooted in evil. The concept of the Laffer curve, even if accepted as correct, has been so distorted that I can't even see the the basis for the conservative's tax policy argument anymore.
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2012 Posted December 5, 2012 Yes, and if you read the dang report it says on-budget balance goes into deficit (from the tax cuts) but the off-budget items (which they say 3/4 is due to the SS trust fund surplus) generate an overall projected surplus. It turns out their projections weren't all that good and we had deficits even with the SS surplus added in. If you accept their projections dude, then read what they wrote about the impact from the tax cuts--they wre projected to decrease revenues by $1.2 trillion! You're hopeless. You don't seem to get it, do you? Yes the CBO was way off. You willy-nilly cherry pick their statements and figures and then discount their other statements and figures. Now, answer me this. Did the tax cuts decrease revenues by $1.2 trillion?
UConn James Posted December 5, 2012 Author Posted December 5, 2012 My aren't we testy. That is one illogical argument, "if they paid more taxes, how'd they make out?" Anyone who earns more income will pay more taxes. You jokers are worried about the deficit, but you are more concerned that the top 1% not pay taxes? They had an increase of $660 billion in income from 2000-07, and paid a 12% rate on that additional income. but you'd be happier if they paid no taxes? Then you want the deficit down? You tell me how will you rationalize that? No one denies that everyone got tax breaks, so you are creating a straw man. However, since 51% of all income goes to the top 20%, then the biggest impact on generating the deficit in revenues comes from their tax savings. That shouldn't be difficult to understand. The argument now is whether to let them all expire or just the top rate expire. Again, you create a strawman argument. And, yes, higher expenditures also helped drive the deficits, which is why the CBO was so far off. Though their use of "dynamic scoring" was also part of the error. Flavor of the week name, that's funny. I've been here as long as anyone--before PPP was even born, and using the same handle. So take a hike sonny. I'm not totally against "the rich" paying a higher %age. I'm against them paying a higher %age and that money going toward more bike paths and light rail and any of the litany of farting-unicorn liberal wet dream feel-good projects that do nothing but create more expenditures when these have to be maintained. I think even the rich would pay more taxes IF spending were reduced. If there were a delineation of 'We're cutting this and this and this and this and it cuts the deficit by X.' Which, off the cuff, is what the Republican plan proposed, sith a mix of cuts and an $800B tax increase. And THEN, have those tax increases earmarked to paying down the national debt. Not get used for whatever new spending initiative the Democrats want or Pres. Obama says we "need." If those increases directly go to paying down our principle, I'm 100% on board. They just have to use that word... earmark. Or, hell, they can use "lock box" if they want. The problem is, there's no way that's going to happen b/c tax money is like crack for Democrats --- give them more, they'll simply spend it all, throw it down the money hole / get crapola in return, and require even more to get the same crack high next time. We all want a solution to this crap. There are just different objectives. And the only Democrat proposals have been bad jokes. No one denied that? Funny. The Left denied it vociferously up until just recently... after the election where they again played the Bush Bad card. If that is true, and seeing SDS's word, then I apologize. I didn't recognize your screen name. Daveinnorf--k/Connor/beausox/eleganteliot/etc. has SO many screen names that he's used and switched between it can be hard to keep track. Despite the 2003 reg I, too, have been on TBD since the start --- RD&C, rivals, everything. I'll make a note in my databank.
TPS Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 You don't seem to get it, do you? Yes the CBO was way off. You willy-nilly cherry pick their statements and figures and then discount their other statements and figures. Now, answer me this. Did the tax cuts decrease revenues by $1.2 trillion? You are describing yourself very well... I really didn't feel like doing more work for you--if you are a big boy, you can find the answers; however, you made me curious... The actual revenues from personal income taxes only, from 2001-08, were $1.5 trillion less than their projected cut of $1.2 trillion!!! That is, the actual decline in personal income tax revenues from 2001-2008 was about $2.3 trillion!!!! (I shaved the last 3 years off their 2001-11 projection of $1.2 to end with Bush's term). Take your blinders off man. $4.4 trillion in debt was added over Bush's 8 years, and half of that came from lower revenues due to his tax cuts.
TPS Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 TPS is a good guy. I'm not really sure he deserved this type of retort... JMO. I think the question is which one is the chicken and which one is the egg. Did the tax cuts allow them to earn an additional $660B that they normally wouldn't have or would that have occured regardless? Personally, I have grown very, very discontent with the conservative position that every problem deserves a tax cut and that every dollar paid in taxes is rooted in evil. The concept of the Laffer curve, even if accepted as correct, has been so distorted that I can't even see the the basis for the conservative's tax policy argument anymore. I appreciate the shout, but I understand we all get very emotional over politics. DC has toughened all of us up over the years... The income is AGI, so it's pre-tax. We're talking the housing bubble with the FIRE sector generating 40% of corporate profits in 2007, and the huge bonuses that went with those profits. Real growth averaged 2.3% from 2001-2007, which is significantly below historical average of 3% (I even excluded 2008 which was negative). The share of AGI income for the top 1% increased from 17.5% to 23% over that period. So to answer your question, since the tax cuts did not lead to greater growth for the economy as a whole, one can't argue they were the cause of the huge increase in the income going to the top 1%--they would've received it anyway. The BIG difference is they paid only a 12% tax rate on that income additional income. Crap! This of course made me compare it to another period. From 1993-97 (I'm trying to stay away from GG's cap gains issue, otherwise I'd go to 2000), the additional income earned was $353 bil and taxes paid of $96 bil, which is a 27% rate. Had the top 1% paid the same 27% rate in 2007 they would've paid an additional $100 billion in taxes., They did pretty well with those tax cuts.
TPS Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 I'm not totally against "the rich" paying a higher %age. I'm against them paying a higher %age and that money going toward more bike paths and light rail and any of the litany of farting-unicorn liberal wet dream feel-good projects that do nothing but create more expenditures when these have to be maintained. I think even the rich would pay more taxes IF spending were reduced. If there were a delineation of 'We're cutting this and this and this and this and it cuts the deficit by X.' Which, off the cuff, is what the Republican plan proposed, sith a mix of cuts and an $800B tax increase. And THEN, have those tax increases earmarked to paying down the national debt. Not get used for whatever new spending initiative the Democrats want or Pres. Obama says we "need." If those increases directly go to paying down our principle, I'm 100% on board. They just have to use that word... earmark. Or, hell, they can use "lock box" if they want. The problem is, there's no way that's going to happen b/c tax money is like crack for Democrats --- give them more, they'll simply spend it all, throw it down the money hole / get crapola in return, and require even more to get the same crack high next time. We all want a solution to this crap. There are just different objectives. And the only Democrat proposals have been bad jokes. No one denied that? Funny. The Left denied it vociferously up until just recently... after the election where they again played the Bush Bad card. If that is true, and seeing SDS's word, then I apologize. I didn't recognize your screen name. Daveinnorf--k/Connor/beausox/eleganteliot/etc. has SO many screen names that he's used and switched between it can be hard to keep track. Despite the 2003 reg I, too, have been on TBD since the start --- RD&C, rivals, everything. I'll make a note in my databank. No worries. Historically, both sides have been addicted to spending, they just focus their spending increases on different "friends" and supporters.
B-Man Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked FTA: In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue. Defense spending as a portion of GDP declined by 1.8 points, but non-defense spending dropped by 2.2 points. Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform. What followed afterward is instructive to the real problem of our current trillion-dollar trajectory of deficit spending. George Bush increased federal spending as a share of GDP by 2.6 points in two terms, and it wasn’t just spent on defense; the increase was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, a remarkable statistic considering the two wars waged in those eight years. Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents. The real debate over deficits isn’t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It’s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling – as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/05/Clintons-Spending-Cuts-Not-His-Tax-Hikes-Worked.aspx#9gbLDYSEhMvqzkk4.99
TPS Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked FTA: In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue. Defense spending as a portion of GDP declined by 1.8 points, but non-defense spending dropped by 2.2 points. Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform. What followed afterward is instructive to the real problem of our current trillion-dollar trajectory of deficit spending. George Bush increased federal spending as a share of GDP by 2.6 points in two terms, and it wasn’t just spent on defense; the increase was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, a remarkable statistic considering the two wars waged in those eight years. Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents. The real debate over deficits isn’t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It’s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling – as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it. http://www.thefiscal...DYSEhMvqzkk4.99 Yes, it's a combination of both--spending needs to come down and revenues need to rise.On the piece, I'm sure much of Bush's non-defense increase went to domestic security spending. For BO, the increase was from the stimulus, TARP and unemployment extensions which are all temporary. The spending ratio is now 24% and will continue to fall back to the 22% range as the economy recovers. To "fix" the long term, it will have to come down further. Edited December 6, 2012 by TPS
/dev/null Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Looks like a political game of chicken. Both sides say they're willing to go over the cliff and want the other side to blink first
3rdnlng Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 You are describing yourself very well... I really didn't feel like doing more work for you--if you are a big boy, you can find the answers; however, you made me curious... The actual revenues from personal income taxes only, from 2001-08, were $1.5 trillion less than their projected cut of $1.2 trillion!!! That is, the actual decline in personal income tax revenues from 2001-2008 was about $2.3 trillion!!!! (I shaved the last 3 years off their 2001-11 projection of $1.2 to end with Bush's term). Take your blinders off man. $4.4 trillion in debt was added over Bush's 8 years, and half of that came from lower revenues due to his tax cuts. Put this in your pipe and smoke it. I see you are being very careful in your wording. Revenues during Bush's years actually rose by about 600 Billion dollars. Once the recession in 2001 and after was over and Bush's tax policy took effect deficits were somewhat controlled (until 2008) unemployment was low and things were moving along nicely. Under Obama receipts have been a lower percentage of GDP than they have been for 60 years. Expenditures have been a higher percentage by far in comparison to GDP since WW11. Now, where are you getting the figure 4.4 trillion dollars from? Is it taking the Bush years from 2001-2008 and adding up the deficits from the OMB charts in the link? Is it because war funding is not showing up there?
TPS Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Put this in your pipe and smoke it. I see you are being very careful in your wording. Revenues during Bush's years actually rose by about 600 Billion dollars. Once the recession in 2001 and after was over and Bush's tax policy took effect deficits were somewhat controlled (until 2008) unemployment was low and things were moving along nicely. Under Obama receipts have been a lower percentage of GDP than they have been for 60 years. Expenditures have been a higher percentage by far in comparison to GDP since WW11. Now, where are you getting the figure 4.4 trillion dollars from? Is it taking the Bush years from 2001-2008 and adding up the deficits from the OMB charts in the link? Is it because war funding is not showing up there? http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htmGross debt outstanding.
3rdnlng Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo5.htm Gross debt outstanding. How do you reconcile the OMB figures that I linked, to your link here? Is it war costs that were not included, or is it SSI obligations that exceed payroll tax? Is it something else?
B-Man Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Yes, it's a combination of both--spending needs to come down and revenues need to rise. On the piece, I'm sure much of Bush's non-defense increase went to domestic security spending. For BO, the increase was from the stimulus, TARP and unemployment extensions which are all temporary. The spending ratio is now 24% and will continue to fall back to the 22% range as the economy recovers. To "fix" the long term, it will have to come down further. Perhaps you should speak to the President......... Chicago Tribune To Obama: Hey, What About Those Spending Cuts? FTA: As we’ve said before, we wish Obama would take the money Boehner offered and run. Republicans make a strong argument that increasing revenue by limiting deductions, rather than sharply hiking rates, would have less of an impact on economic growth. Yes, Obama campaigned on those tax rate increases. But he campaigned just as fervently on the need for a “balanced” mix of revenue hikes and spending cuts. With his obsession on tax rates rather than on debt and entitlements, the president does not look focused on finding a two-party solution for crises that two parties created. Americans who voted for Obama reflect that call for balance more than his ultimatums have: Politico reported Monday that a poll for a moderate Democratic think tank, Third Way, found 85 percent of Obama voters favoring higher taxes on the wealthy: “Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts. Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.” What Americans see, though, is a White House offering essentially the same tax-centric budget that Obama proposed last winter, while Republicans have moved away from the no-new-revenue budget the House passed. Instead, Boehner and other Republican leaders on Monday offered Obama a package similar to the deal the two men agreed upon, then scuttled, in mid-2011. Obama isn’t interested in raising revenue so much as punishing high earners and humiliating the House GOP............Forward! .
SDS Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120612-636087-democrats-dirty-little-secret-middle-class-tax-increases-ahead.htm Howard Dean calls for middle class taxes...
TPS Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) http://news.investor...eases-ahead.htm Howard Dean calls for middle class taxes... I think I started one of these two threads saying why not just let it all expire on Jan 1? We go back to the tax structure that generated the surpluses and there are automatic spending cuts, especially needed for defense as we continue to spend like it's the Cold War. The issue is the fragile economy. How do you reconcile the OMB figures that I linked, to your link here? Is it war costs that were not included, or is it SSI obligations that exceed payroll tax? Is it something else? Yes. Edited December 7, 2012 by TPS
3rdnlng Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I think I started one of these two threads saying why not just let it all expire on Jan 1? We go back to the tax structure that generated the surpluses and there are automatic spending cuts, especially needed for defense as we continue to spend like it's the Cold War. The issue is the fragile economy. Yes. So, in other words, according to your link, Obama's deficits (or debt growth if you prefer) was approximately 3.5 trillion dollars in his first two years alone? Not too far off Bush's debt growth for 8 years.
TPS Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 So, in other words, according to your link, Obama's deficits (or debt growth if you prefer) was approximately 3.5 trillion dollars in his first two years alone? Not too far off Bush's debt growth for 8 years. Yes, if $2 trillion is your definition of "not too far off....."
Recommended Posts