Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And by the way, anyone else find it ing hilarious how Kevin is wailing and moaning now about deficits, while seemingly wanting more tax cuts for the top 2% that ultimately adds some $800 billion more to the deficit? Cute, ain’t it?
right now, you can't have all 3. and i think its totally disingenuous to complain about all 3 at the same time, especially if, like kev, you're emphasising the responsibility of the president less than 2 years into his first term. like, :/
Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Cut spending. Send the Teabaggers to re-education camps.....
Problem Solved.
:)
Shakka
My goodness...the day a conservative invokes JFK to criticize librul tax policies...shocking. Hell hath frozen over.
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
My goodness...the day a conservative invokes JFK to criticize librul tax policies...shocking. Hell hath frozen over.
This past year has been "Bizzaro World" in American Politics....
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
You've posted this before, and I'll ask the same question - why is '08 blue, other than to give the erroneous impression that Obama passed TARP and not a Republican White House?
edit: I see pkc beat me there (nicely done)
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You've posted this before, and I'll ask the same question - why is '08 blue, other than to give the erroneous impression that Obama passed TARP and not a Republican White House?
edit: I see pkc beat me there (nicely done)
And I've said before, I was against excessive spending and Bush doing that. It's important to note that the 2008 budget was created by Democrats- Congress pushed it back until after Bush left office. That's why its blue. Even with a poor spending record by Bush while on his way out that final year, he is still a piker compared to Obama's spending tactics. If you're criticizing what Bush did, please be consistent.
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You've posted this before, and I'll ask the same question - why is '08 blue, other than to give the erroneous impression that Obama passed TARP and not a Republican White House?
edit: I see pkc beat me there (nicely done)
Facts mean nothing to the willful ignorant.
;)
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And I also noticed how you seemed to handwave away the majority of my counterpoints to your arguments above. Again, I’m pretty sure we were talking about how the earth was going to end when we end the Bush tax cuts. Care to revisit that topic once again, Kevin?
Your counterpoints are not being lost on me or waived away, believe me. You argue your points well. But like every other time, where is this going to go? For as many graphs and articles of economic wisdom I post, you brush them aside as though they're meaningless compared to your rebuttal graphs and articles of economic wisdom. I could in turn come right back and do the same again, and then you would do the same after that. And neither one of us will cede any ground, as I don't think we ever have. You can find someone who's statistics say Bush created 1.2 million jobs, I can find one who says 5.5 million. 10 million. Who's right? How can you push the entire "inherited mess all republican fault" thing when the deficit was reduced 60% from 2004-2007 following tax cuts? At what point... seriously... are the Democrats going to be responsible for the economy- they've had Congressional power for 4 years and majorities across the board for almost 2.
Just step back away from the trees and look at the forest man. Is our political ruling class putting together real policies that will make our economy grow? Criticize all you wish, but economies grow and job creation happens every time taxes are reduced. And every time taxation increases, economies stagnate. When you have more people employed paying into the system, revenues go up and those dreaded "tax cut costs" can be offset. You do know that more money went to the Fed than at any point in history once Bush cut taxes, right? Now what was done with that money is the problem. Go ahead and think taxing the people who make over $200K will be the answer to our deficit problems. All they're going to do is hold on tighter to their money and not spend or hire- why would they if growth and profit puts a target on your back? The very people being punished- that evil top 2%- are the ones who take risks and invest and put money into the market, and they will simply lay low, as they can afford to, until the storm passes. Can you blame them?
quote:
In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.
This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there's no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.
Possibly the worst thing you've ever posted. "Clinton grew the economy successfully by raising taxes"... HA! It was growing marginally at best, but then he was basically forced to sign the "Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997" by Gingrich and the new Republican control. THAT'S when the economy began to jump. Look, once the Capital Gains tax was reduced in 1997 after that taxpayer relief bill, capital investment TRIPLED in one year, and then doubled again the following year. And, his magical budget balancing happened after 1997 as well for the same reason. But uh... yeah Clinton's tax raises are what jump started that darned economy! :stongue:
Man you Lefties looooove to ignore this fact, so you can justify your appetite for tax increases you try to make us believe will provide additional tax revenues today. Economic law, buddy- the more an activity gets taxed, the less of that activity there becomes. In fact, per the CBO, OMB, and IRS's records, Clinton's 1993 tax raise, one of the largest in history, didn't nearly produce the tax receipts to the government they predicted despite their grandiose size. Cap gains rate went from 28% to 20%, a child tax credit was added, and it established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates. This is all Republican House/Congress' doing. , without the dot-com revolution generating sick profits, which had nothing to do with Clinton, he would have looked much worse.
Look... all I want you to do is admit that we can't afford to borrow and spend at this pace any longer, we can't afford to guarantee these crazy bull Union pension plans, and that we need to shrink the federal bureaucracy rather than expand it. You know that's true... and it won't turn you into an evil Republican to admit as much. One step towards the road to recovery, come on now. ;)
quote:
Again, I’m pretty sure we were talking about how the earth was going to end when we end the Bush tax cuts. Care to revisit that topic once again, Kevin?
I actually can't wait to discuss this with you once 2011 starts. If you think the economy is going to improve when tax rates go back up, then I've grossly overestimated your sanity.
I will leave you with 1 parting graph though, since you love to bring up the whole Iraq thing (which in its entirety cost less than the failed Obama stimulus). From the CBO:
Originally posted by The17sss
Your counterpoints are not being lost on me or waived away, believe me. You argue your points well. But like every other time, where is this going to go? For as many graphs and articles of economic wisdom I post, you brush them aside as though they're meaningless compared to your rebuttal graphs and articles of economic wisdom. I could in turn come right back and do the same again, and then you would do the same after that. And neither one of us will cede any ground, as I don't think we ever have.
I'm happy to cede ground when the evidence supports your arguments. I just haven't much of what you submit demonstrate that very well, especially on your failing to demonstrate current Bush tax cuts that largely benefit primarily the top 2% will somehow stimulate the economy again while putting us anywhere between $700-800 billion EVEN FURTHER into the red. Or, conversely, how letting those expire on the top 2% and keeping the tax cuts for the middle class somehow spells Armageddon.
quote:
You can find someone who's statistics say Bush created 1.2 million jobs, I can find one who says 5.5 million. 10 million. Who's right?
Whomever demonstrates the best, well-supported evidence, I guess.
quote:
How can you push the entire "inherited mess all republican fault" thing when the deficit was reduced 60% from 2004-2007 following tax cuts?
Macroeconomics isn't one of my strong points (most of economics for that matter), but I do tend to wonder how you can find direct correlation between the two with evidence to support your assertions. IOW, correlation is not causation, but you're welcome to try and demonstrate that. I also seem to remember that the housing bubble was at it's peak at that time - is that directly related to tax cuts? If so, does the end result of tax cuts inevitably become a gigantic bubble burst and recession, because I could just as easily correlate that to tax cuts like you just did if that's the case.
quote:
At what point... seriously... are the Democrats going to be responsible for the economy- they've had Congressional power for 4 years and majorities across the board for almost 2.
Well that is an interesting point, because below you are arguing that it was the Republican-led Congress that we owe all the success to the Clinton economy in accordance to your Heritage article. But yet, according to you, when things were ty with our national debt under Bush II and the Housing Bubble burst, well hell, that too was Congress' fault, only this time it's led by the Democrats.
Funny how you seem to yet once again try to have your cake and eat it too. When things are good, it's the Republicans in charge, but when things are bad, it's the...uh...Democrats in charge of Congress. And you're asking me about taking Responsibility for the economy?
Hi pot, it's me, Kettle *waves*!
quote:
Just step back away from the trees and look at the forest man.
Can't. Too busy hugging this big one I'm under right now :D.
quote:
Is our political ruling class putting together real policies that will make our economy grow?
IMO, no - they didn't go far enough, which was exactly what your favorite boy Krugman argued:
quote:
One group — the group that got almost all the attention — declared that the stimulus was much too large, and would lead to disaster. If you were, say, reading The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages in early 2009, you would have been repeatedly informed that the Obama plan would lead to skyrocketing interest rates and soaring inflation.
The other group, which included yours truly, warned that the plan was much too small given the economic forecasts then available.
(snip)So what actually happened? The administration’s optimistic forecast was wrong, but which group of pessimists was right about the reasons for that error?
Start with interest rates. Those who said the stimulus was too big predicted sharply rising rates. When rates rose in early 2009, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers return.” The editorial declared that it was all about fear of deficits, and concluded, “When in doubt, bet on the markets.”
But those who said the stimulus was too small argued that temporary deficits weren’t a problem as long as the economy remained depressed; we were awash in savings with nowhere to go. Interest rates, we said, would fluctuate with optimism or pessimism about future growth, not with government borrowing.
When in doubt, bet on the markets. The 10-year bond rate was over 3.7 percent when The Journal published that editorial; it’s under 2.7 percent now.
What about inflation? Amid the inflation hysteria of early 2009, the inadequate-stimulus critics pointed out that inflation always falls during sustained periods of high unemployment, and that this time should be no different. Sure enough, key measures of inflation have fallen from more than 2 percent before the economic crisis to 1 percent or less now, and Japanese-style deflation is looking like a real possibility.
Meanwhile, the timing of recent economic growth strongly supports the notion that stimulus does, indeed, boost the economy: growth accelerated last year, as the stimulus reached its predicted peak impact, but has fallen off — just as some of us feared — as the stimulus has faded.
Oh, and don’t tell me that Germany proves that austerity, not stimulus, is the way to go. Germany actually did quite a lot of stimulus — the austerity is all in the future. Also, it never had a housing bubble that burst. And with all that, German G.D.P. is still further below its precrisis peak than American G.D.P. True, Germany has done better in terms of employment — but that’s because strong unions and government policy have prevented American-style mass layoffs.
I'm pretty certain this discussion has occurred before on TA. I distinctly remember Occrider trying to discuss this with you about Keynesian economics and why spending has to happen at this point, because the reverse would have essentially meant economic devastation not just on a national front, but a global one.
And again I wonder exactly how this ties into the supposed Armageddon that would occur when we let the tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans who are pretty well-off expire.
quote:
Criticize all you wish, but economies grow and job creation happens every time taxes are reduced.
Straw man. You confuse me with someone who does not agree with having tax cuts. I'm all for them at appropriate times and for appropriate financial classes. What you fail to demonstrate time and again along with your Conservative bretheren is the trickle-down effect of creating huge tax cuts for the most affluent somehow trickles down to everyone else. A tax cut for the middle class is often the most appropriate response to an economic downturn, which funny enough that's exactly what Obama has done.
You do remember that Obama did cut taxes for most of us in his Stimulus plan, right?
quote:
And every time taxation increases, economies stagnate.
Clinton years pre-1998 seemingly undermines your point. As does Reagan who raised taxes more times than any of the current presidents, unless you're going to undermine your hero president of the 1980's and tell me otherwise.
And your word-play is interesting, because I could just as easily say that it's not just a matter of "taxation increases", but rather historical points of much higher tax rates in general under previous Administrations completely undermine your point.
And let's also keep in mind that, again, this current tax cut was made to expire by the Republicans so other Administrations can deal with their fiscal mess created by lost revenue, and then we are only RETURNING to previous tax levels. That is not an "increase," per se.
quote:
When you have more people employed paying into the system, revenues go up and those dreaded "tax cut costs" can be offset. You do know that more money went to the Fed than at any point in history once Bush cut taxes, right? Now what was done with that money is the problem.
That's hardly a point for you Conservatives to hang your hat on considering how far into the red he was, not to mention completely failing to cover the cost of his wars in the budget numbers in the ing first place. That's like saying I owe you $1,000,000, and I'm borrowing 10K from you every month still. Now I pay you 5K a month in return, but then for about 3 months I pay you 10K a month back. Yeah, woo ing hoo. How much does my ass still owe you?
quote:
Go ahead and think taxing the people who make over $200K will be the answer to our deficit problems.
Straw man. I never said such a thing. Rather, I was pointing out that it was YOU who is arguing and failing to demonstrate how taking away those tax breaks from those about $250,000 will somehow destroy our economy and the world as we know it.
quote:
All they're going to do is hold on tighter to their money and not spend or hire- why would they if growth and profit puts a target on your back?
False logic. It's pretty clear from the Bush II years that a huge cut in taxes, primarily benefiting the upper echelon, doesn't somehow create more jobs:
You want to somehow believe that increases in income taxes on corporations and the affluent will force them to tighten their belt, yet history provides ample evidence of very high income tax rates in the past yet our economy did quite well under those previous Administrations.
But if we logically follow the reverse of what you're saying and try to believe tax cuts somehow cause a loosening of their belts to spend and hire workers, the evidence simply does not support your view.
quote:
The very people being punished- that evil top 2%- are the ones who take risks and invest and put money into the market, and they will simply lay low, as they can afford to, until the storm passes. Can you blame them?
Again I'd like to see how the evidence supports your view, because I have not seen any that does so.
quote:
Possibly the worst thing you've ever posted. "Clinton grew the economy successfully by raising taxes"... HA! It was growing marginally at best, but then he was basically forced to sign the "Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997" by Gingrich and the new Republican control. THAT'S when the economy began to jump. Look, once the Capital Gains tax was reduced in 1997 after that taxpayer relief bill, capital investment TRIPLED in one year, and then doubled again the following year. And, his magical budget balancing happened after 1997 as well for the same reason. But uh... yeah Clinton's tax raises are what jump started that darned economy! :stongue:
Man you Lefties looooove to ignore this fact, so you can justify your appetite for tax increases you try to make us believe will provide additional tax revenues today. Economic law, buddy- the more an activity gets taxed, the less of that activity there becomes. In fact, per the CBO, OMB, and IRS's records, Clinton's 1993 tax raise, one of the largest in history, didn't nearly produce the tax receipts to the government they predicted despite their grandiose size. Cap gains rate went from 28% to 20%, a child tax credit was added, and it established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates. This is all Republican House/Congress' doing. , without the dot-com revolution generating sick profits, which had nothing to do with Clinton, he would have looked much worse.
Look... all I want you to do is admit that we can't afford to borrow and spend at this pace any longer, we can't afford to guarantee these crazy bull Union pension plans, and that we need to shrink the federal bureaucracy rather than expand it. You know that's true... and it won't turn you into an evil Republican to admit as much. One step towards the road to recovery, come on now. ;)
There are a number of reasons why the Clinton years were so successful that I can think of:
1. Relative time of peace - war spending sucks, so this definitely helped
2. Tech boom - much of this can not be credited to the Administration, although I would argue some of his policies assisted it.
These first two points have nothing to do with the 1997 tax cut. Furthermore, I think it's worth examining the distinct differences of the tax cut under Clinton versus Bush and who exactly it benefitted the most. A large % of the 1997 tax cut went to the middle class, which is nothing like the Bush tax cut. Take a look at what Clinton said:
quote:
"I have long considered tax cuts for middleincome Americans and small businesses a top priority. In 1993, I worked with the Congress to cut taxes for 15 million working families by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and by providing investment incentives for small businesses. A year later, I proposed my Middle Class Bill of Rights, including child tax credits, deductions for higher education, and expanded Individual Retirement Accounts. Then, in 1996, I signed into law a number of other tax benefits for small businesses and their employees—including greater expensing for small-business investments, greater deductibility of health insurance premiums for small businesses and their employees, and expanded and simplified opportunities for retirement savings. Also in 1996, I signed into law a $5,000 tax credit for adoption expenses ($6,000 for adopting children with special needs) and higher limits for tax-deductible contributions by spouses to Individual Retirement Accounts.
"This year, I once again proposed my Middle Class Bill of Rights. On May 2, 1997, the congressional leadership and I reached a historic bipartisan budget agreement that included the broad outlines of key elements of my tax-cut plan."
You're comparing or implying apples to oranges with these two tax cuts. Just because their both tax cuts does not entail they are the same and benefit the economy in the same manner.
You know what's really funny? The fact that you seem to overlook what exactly was in Obama's stimulus plan - ING TAX CUTS! Over 1/3 of his bill was direct tax cuts, another 1/3 one could argue were indirect tax cuts.
So is the stimulus plan bad because of the tax cuts then? Or, wait, , only some tax cuts are good when they benefit the wealthy because THEY are the ones who help the economy the most? Now I know you'll prove that one of these days, but I'm just really confusing myself now!
You're so ing hellbent on your stereotypes of Democrats and lefties that you can't even grasp the fact that we can and often do tax cuts too, you ing twit! And what's worse, you stereotype even yourselves as Conservatives so much that you buy into your own bull into believing tax cuts pay for themselves, don't create deficits, and true Conservatives don't ever raise taxes (which excludes your boyhood hero Reagan).
quote:
I actually can't wait to discuss this with you once 2011 starts. If you think the economy is going to improve when tax rates go back up, then I've grossly overestimated your sanity.
No need to overestimate mine, considering I think you're bat insane. And again, if you can demonstrate somehow to us all here how the economy and everything around us will burn because tax rates are RETURNING TO PREVIOUS LEVELS BEFORE BUSH for the top 2%, then stop ing playing games and demonstrate that, please.
quote:
I will leave you with 1 parting graph though, since you love to bring up the whole Iraq thing (which in its entirety cost less than the failed Obama stimulus). From the CBO:
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to show me. I'm not a fan of the war no matter who the president is, Obama or Bush. It's clear it's a part of the deficit under both, what's your point?
MisterOpus1
Some more interesting information comparing supply-side eras versus non-supply-side eras:
quote:
The efficacy of supply-side policies thus becomes an empirical question: Do they work? As importantly, do they work better than alternative approaches of greater public investment to stimulate our economy? The two supply-side eras that sandwich the period from 1993 to 2001 offer us an opportunity to assess the impact of supply-side policies. The claims for these policies have been great, yet the results have been meager. Specifically:
* Real investment growth after the tax increases of 1993 was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001. The yearly growth rate after 1993 was 10.2 percent versus 2.8 percent for the first supply-side era beginning in 1981, and 2.7 percent in the period of the second supply-side era beginning in 2001. Without better investment growth being associated with supply-side policies, a critical link in the theory of supply-side economics is broken—and it is difficult to draw any plausible connection between supply-side tax cuts and any observed positive economic performance.
* Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras. Over the seven-year periods after each legislative action, average annual growth was 3.9 percent following 1993, 3.5 percent following 1981, and 2.5 percent following 2001.
* Average annual real median household income growth was greatest after the 1993 tax increases, at 2.0 percent annually compared to 1.4 percent after 1981 and 0.3 percent after 2001.
* Wage levels also did better after 1993. Average real hourly earnings following 1981 fell at an annual rate of 0.1 percent and following 2001 rose at a rate of only 0.3 percent. Following the 1993 tax increases average hourly earnings grew by 0.9 percent per year.
* Employment growth was weaker during the supply-side eras than during the post-1993 era. Average annual employment growth was 2.1 percent after 1981, 2.5 percent after 1993, and 0.6 percent after 2001.
* Federal budget deficits and national debt increased during supply-side periods and decreased following the 1993 tax increases. In the seven years from 1993 to 1999, the country went from a federal deficit of 3.9 percent of GDP to a surplus of 1.4 percent. After 1981 the deficit ballooned to 6 percent of GDP by 1983. In the year the 2001 tax legislation was adopted, there was a surplus of 1.3 percent of GDP. This turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent by 2004, which fell back to 1.2 percent in 2007 but will undoubtedly be higher in 2008. The national debt has followed a similar pattern, rising by an astounding 14.8 percentage points relative to GDP over the 7 years following adoption of the 1981 supply-side tax cuts, shrinking by almost 10 percentage points relative to GDP following 1993, and moving back up by 3.8 percentage points relative to GDP after the 2001 tax cuts.
Originally posted by The17sss
How can you push the entire "inherited mess all republican fault" thing when the deficit was reduced 60% from 2004-2007 following tax cuts?
I'd just like to revisit this point, because in addition to what I said above, this is also relevant:
quote:
Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 to 2007.
“Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit… Today’s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.” — President Bush, July 11, 2006
Reality: Robust revenue growth in 2005-2007 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.
When discussing revenue growth since the enactment of the tax cuts, Administration officials typically focus only on revenue growth since 2004. This provides a convenient starting point for their arguments, as it sets a very low bar. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959. Given this historically low starting point, it is not surprising that revenues have recovered since then. Supporters of the tax cuts selectively cite revenue growth over just the past three years to argue that the tax cuts fueled increases in revenues.
Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal years 2005-2007, total revenues have just barely increased over the 2001-2007 business cycle, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. (The business cycle began in March 2001, when the 1990s business cycle hit its peak and thereby came to an end.) In contrast, six and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 12 percent, and in the 1990s, real per-capita revenues were up 16 percent (see Table 1). Revenues in 2007 were still more than $250 billion short of where they would have been had they grown at the rates typical in other recoveries.
Further, while the Administration has credited the tax cuts with the drop in the fiscal year 2007 deficit to “only” $162 billion, the 2007 budget would have been in surplus were it not for the tax cuts. Based on Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the total 2007 cost of tax cuts enacted since January 2001 was $300 billion (taking into account the increased interest costs on the debt that have resulted from the deficit financing of the tax cuts). This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset. While supporters of these tax cuts claim that their positive economic effects have lowered their cost, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found in a September, 2006 report that “at the current time, as the stimulus effects have faded and the effect of added debt service has grown, the 2001-2004 tax cuts are probably costing more than their estimated revenue cost.”
Looking out over the next several decades, when deficits are projected to be far larger (because of the impact on the budget of the continued rise in health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers), the tax cuts, if extended, will still be a major contributor to the nation’s fiscal problems. (http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.htm) To put the long-run cost of the tax cuts in perspective, the 75-year Social Security shortfall, about which the President and Congressional leaders have expressed grave concern, is less than one-third the cost of the tax cuts over the same period. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-31-08socsec.htm)
