Had enough of obamanomics?

[Openmind]

There is also something to be said for facing reality and realizing that circumstances change, and ten year surplus estimates are hardly worth the paper they are written on.



What kind of grades did Obama make?

Don't tell me that you are one of those "Birthers!"

You're too smart for that! And I do believe that YOU KNOW that Obama would not have been name edited of the law review in Harvard if he had been a C student!. .you have to admit that much!

Ten year surplus estimate? Obviously they're not a sure thing. . .it depends what kind of administrations we have during those ten years, and what they do with that prediction. . .

Some prefer to sell the eggs before they're hatched??? And give huget tax breaks that are not warranted or at least not safe?

And engage in an illegal war that burdens the country for another decade for NOTHING!

 

[BigRob]

Don't tell me that you are one of those "Birthers!"

Haha, absolutely not. I made numerous posts (on this board too I think) that Republicans needed to stop talking about that issue because it was only hurting the party.

You're too smart for that! And I do believe that YOU KNOW that Obama would not have been name edited of the law review in Harvard if he had been a C student!. .you have to admit that much!

I do know for a fact that Harvard Law School does not give grades, although I think that is a relatively new thing.

As for being the editor of the law review, that does clearly show he made law review, which I do know is competitive. (My wife was the editor of her law review, also a top 50 law school)

I was simply making a facetious comment that we don't in fact know his exact grades, in response to Shaman's idiotic attempt to paint Bush as an idiot because he made some C's.

Ten year surplus estimate? Obviously they're not a sure thing. . .it depends what kind of administrations we have during those ten years, and what they do with that prediction. . .

They also depend on unforeseen events and in the case of the CBO estimates of the "Clinton surplus", it relies on very questionable baseline numbers, bad assumptions that growth rates would continue at far higher levels than could be true.

Some prefer to sell the eggs before they're hatched??? And give huget tax breaks that are not warranted or at least not safe?

You cannot have it both ways. If you believe the projected surplus was accurate, then we could easily afford the tax cuts...if you believe the projection was not accurate, then Clinton never did create a surplus.

And engage in an illegal war that burdens the country for another decade for NOTHING!

The war was not illegal.

 

[ProudLefty]

So, OK Big Rob, where do you and Openmind disagree? The discrepancy about whether the invasion of Iraq was legal or not is trivial. I take her point to be that the war was made into a legal war with illegal means (untruths were told to get votes). History has shown us that the tellers of the untruths, excepting Colin Powell, knew that the facts did not support their statements.

So, where do you two disagree? It seems to me the disagreement is only one of magnitude, not of direction.

 

[BigRob]

So, OK Big Rob, where do you and Openmind disagree? The discrepancy about whether the invasion of Iraq was legal or not is trivial. I take her point to be that the war was made into a legal war with illegal means (untruths were told to get votes). History has shown us that the tellers of the untruths, excepting Colin Powell, knew that the facts did not support their statements.

So, where do you two disagree? It seems to me the disagreement is only one of magnitude, not of direction.

Well, as you say, we disagree on the legality of the war. We also disagree (based on other posts) about the causes of our deficit and how to start turning that around..which of course leads to a disagree on tax rates etc.

In terms of Obama being born in the US and being a relatively smart guy, I think we both agree.

 

[ProudLefty]

Well, as you say, we disagree on the legality of the war. We also disagree (based on other posts) about the causes of our deficit and how to start turning that around..which of course leads to a disagree on tax rates etc.

In terms of Obama being born in the US and being a relatively smart guy, I think we both agree.

Now, I am curious. May I ask you your list of causes of the deficit? Just to be sure we are talking the same thing, you are talking about the yearly deficit, not the accumulated debt, right?

 

[BigRob]

Now, I am curious. May I ask you your list of causes of the deficit? Just to be sure we are talking the same thing, you are talking about the yearly deficit, not the accumulated debt, right?

Well, in terms of the yearly budget deficits it will obviously vary based on spending for whatever year you are talking about.

So, to focus on the so called "surplus" from Clinton and then look at what caused our now large deficits (and even larger debt), I would list the following:

The bulk of the swing resulted from two recessions, two stock market crashes, and other economic/technical factors (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent). (This from the Heritage Foundation)

 

[Openmind]

Well, in terms of the yearly budget deficits it will obviously vary based on spending for whatever year you are talking about.

So, to focus on the so called "surplus" from Clinton and then look at what caused our now large deficits (and even larger debt), I would list the following:

The bulk of the swing resulted from two recessions, two stock market crashes, and other economic/technical factors (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent). (This from the Heritage Foundation)

May I ask where you get those percentages?

And I assume that in the "other new spending" you included the expense of the Iraq war?
And when you talk about the 2009 stimulus, you are obviously talking about the stimulus proposed by Bush and supported by Obama?

And the "other tax cuts" (which seem very understated), I assume you are talking about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and their continuation (under durest) by Obama?

 

[BigRob]

May I ask where you get those percentages?

And I assume that in the "other new spending" you included the expense of the Iraq war?
And when you talk about the 2009 stimulus, you are obviously talking about the stimulus proposed by Bush and supported by Obama?

And the "other tax cuts" (which seem very understated), I assume you are talking about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and their continuation (under durest) by Obama?

The following is the complete article at Heritage:

The 2001/2003 tax cuts are blamed for past, present, and future budget deficits. The numbers tell a different story.

When the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast a $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011. Instead, Washington is set to run a cumulative $6.1 trillion deficit over that period. So what caused this dizzying $11.7 trillion swing? CBO data reveal that the much-maligned tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and even that excludes any positive economic impact of the tax cuts).

The bulk of the swing resulted from two recessions, two stock market crashes, and other economic/technical factors (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent).

Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4 percent of the swing. Even without any tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.

In 2011, low tax revenues are a temporary result of the sluggish economy. The $200 billion annual cost of the tax cuts (three-quarters of which go to those earning under $250,000) is not a major player in the $1.5 trillion budget deficit.

The tax cuts are not driving future budget deficits, either. Over the past half-century, tax revenues have deviated little from their 18.0 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) average. By the end of the decade (once the economy recovers), tax revenues are projected to reach 18.4 percent of GDP – even with all tax cuts extended – and continue surging thereafter. This is because rising real incomes automatically push taxpayers into higher income tax brackets, increasing tax revenues’ share of the economy.

Runaway federal spending is the real driver of long-term budget deficits. While tax revenues will return to their historical average by the end of the decade, spending is projected to soar by 6 percent of GDP above its own historical average – resulting in deficits approaching $2 trillion annually.

Put differently, the tax cuts (which acknowledge that it’s the people’s money) are projected to reduce revenues by (at most) $3 trillion over the next decade. By contrast, Washington is projected to spend $48 trillion, including $17 trillion on Social Security and Medicare, and $8 trillion on antipoverty programs.

 

[Openmind]

The following is the complete article at Heritage:

The 2001/2003 tax cuts are blamed for past, present, and future budget deficits. The numbers tell a different story.

When the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast a $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011. Instead, Washington is set to run a cumulative $6.1 trillion deficit over that period. So what caused this dizzying $11.7 trillion swing? CBO data reveal that the much-maligned tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and even that excludes any positive economic impact of the tax cuts).

The bulk of the swing resulted from two recessions, two stock market crashes, and other economic/technical factors (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent). Funny, it says 3% here, and 4% two lines below

Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4 percent of the swing. Even without any tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.

In 2011, low tax revenues are a temporary result of the sluggish economy. The $200 billion annual cost of the tax cuts (three-quarters of which go to those earning under $250,000) is not a major player in the $1.5 trillion budget deficit.

The tax cuts are not driving future budget deficits, either. Over the past half-century, tax revenues have deviated little from their 18.0 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) average. If that is true. . .it obviously demonstrate that the tax increases didn't make it deviate any more than the tax cuts. . .

By the end of the decade (once the economy recovers), tax revenues are projected to reach 18.4 percent of GDP – even with all tax cuts extended – and continue surging thereafter. This is because rising real incomes automatically push taxpayers into higher income tax brackets, increasing tax revenues’ share of the economy.

Runaway federal spending is the real driver of long-term budget deficits. While tax revenues will return to their historical average by the end of the decade, spending is projected to soar by 6 percent of GDP above its own historical average – resulting in deficits approaching $2 trillion annually.

Put differently, the tax cuts (which acknowledge that it’s the people’s money) are projected to reduce revenues by (at most) $3 trillion over the next decade. By contrast, Washington is projected to spend $48 trillion, including $17 trillion on Social Security and Medicare, and $8 trillion on antipoverty programs.

Well, it seems to me that those $3 trillions are not exactly pocket change, and WOULD help reduce the deficit! So. . .if one has a choice (and a social conscience), is it better to get $3 trillions in additional tax revenues, or cut the antipoverty programs by $3 trillions?

Guess what I would pick!

By the way, you do realize that "heritage foundation" is an extreme right organization, founded by big business and seriously biased toward their very wealthy sponsors, right?

 

[BigRob]

Well, it seems to me that those $3 trillions are not exactly pocket change, and WOULD help reduce the deficit! So. . .if one has a choice (and a social conscience), is it better to get $3 trillions in additional tax revenues, or cut the antipoverty programs by $3 trillions?

Guess what I would pick!

I think you know what I would pick.

I think that the best anti-poverty program is a job. And when we make it easier for businesses to thrive (through sound tax policy, regulations etc), it will be far more beneficial than just getting stuck in a cycle that ultimately seems to perpetuate the poverty it seeks to eliminate.

 

[BigRob]

Funny, it says 3% here, and 4% two lines below.

I think those are different tax cuts he is talking about. He quotes the big ones as being 14% above, and then the "other" tax cuts are what I assume are outside of those.

And the 4% is the number attributed to the cuts solely for those making $250,000 a year or more.

If that is true. . .it obviously demonstrate that the tax increases didn't make it deviate any more than the tax cuts. . .

I agree! I think it is simplistic to simply state "tax cuts will increase revenue." They won't. What will is a sounds policies that are pro-business, that can expand the tax base.

Lower taxes make it easier for business to thrive in my opinion, and that is what ultimately grows the tax base and increases revenue...not simply the cut itself.

 

[Openmind]

I think those are different tax cuts he is talking about. He quotes the big ones as being 14% above, and then the "other" tax cuts are what I assume are outside of those.

And the 4% is the number attributed to the cuts solely for those making $250,000 a year or more.



I agree! I think it is simplistic to simply state "tax cuts will increase revenue." They won't. What will is a sounds policies that are pro-business, that can expand the tax base.

Lower taxes make it easier for business to thrive in my opinion, and that is what ultimately grows the tax base and increases revenue...not simply the cut itself.

If lower tax cuts make it so much easier for businesses to thrive. . .why did the GDP not sky rocket after the Bush tax cuts?

And if it makes it so much easier for businesses to thrive, why didn't they "thrive" from 2002 through 2011?

 

[BigRob]

If lower tax cuts make it so much easier for businesses to thrive. . .why did the GDP not sky rocket after the Bush tax cuts?

And if it makes it so much easier for businesses to thrive, why didn't they "thrive" from 2002 through 2011?

More Heritage:


The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened:


- GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

- Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.

- The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.

- The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

- In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

 

[Openmind]

More Heritage:


The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened:


- GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

- Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.

- The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.

- The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

- In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

He. . .you really are stuck with that "heritage, one side of the story!"

But at least, it answered one of your questions from yesterday about "comparing Bush's two first years and Obama's!

Bush lost 267,000 jobs in those 2 years!

And. . .since those tax cuts were directed to "income," (that, at least also helps the middle class) and "dividends" and "capital gains." Do you have ANY idea how people making $30,000 or $50,000 a year can save enough to have "dividends" and "capital gains?"
So. . .this clearly states that the Bush tax cuts STRONGLY favored the wealthy!

By the way, the growth in GDP and the "renewed" employment (a net of 40,000 jobs in 18 months!!!! A really big deal!) was very short lived, and was totally artificial. . .leading to the crash of 2008. . .and after that it's history!

 

[BigRob]

He. . .you really are stuck with that "heritage, one side of the story!"

I'm sure I could find a similar article from CATO.

But at least, it answered one of your questions from yesterday about "comparing Bush's two first years and Obama's!

Bush lost 267,000 jobs in those 2 years!

Well, 6 quarters is not two years, but yes, it does come close.

And. . .since those tax cuts were directed to "income," (that, at least also helps the middle class) and "dividends" and "capital gains." Do you have ANY idea how people making $30,000 or $50,000 a year can save enough to have "dividends" and "capital gains?"
So. . .this clearly states that the Bush tax cuts STRONGLY favored the wealthy!

More Heritage:

In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers. The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent.

By the way, the growth in GDP and the "renewed" employment (a net of 40,000 jobs in 18 months!!!! A really big deal!) was very short lived, and was totally artificial. . .leading to the crash of 2008. . .and after that it's history!

Are you claiming that the Bush Tax cuts caused the financial collapse?