TPS

Here's a source for the cap gains.http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-1954-2009

You are correct. I had the 5.6 figure in my head and worked off of that. You've hung me out to dry. I admit it, Bush's deficits were good, Obama's bad.

Yes, if $2 trillion is your definition of "not too far off....."

That is not true. I'll bet you two beers on that one. Cap gains increased, but it was in no way the majority of the source for the revenue increase each year.

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.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htmGross debt outstanding.

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.

No worries. Historically, both sides have been addicted to spending, they just focus their spending increases on different "friends" and supporters.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's clear that your bias prevents you from seeing reality. Here's what the CBO report, linked in the editorial you posted, states: There, I've done your homework.

You miss the point. The point is that unemployment of 4% vs 6% was a huge cause of the surpluses. Ahhh...reminds me of school days...it's been used before, so to speak....I love it when people tell you what you are saying... I'm saying government did not have to raise rates in the 1980s, because the PayGo system was sufficient to cover at the current rates. I'm not saying no SS taxes--"read my lips!"

Funny Wanker.Never said that. What I'm saying is that if the trust fund isn't there, then we were hoodwinked into believing that the increase in SS taxes in the 1980s was needed to "fund" SS payouts now. If you accept the Kraut's words, then the excess taxes paid on SS for the past 30 years has gone to support general government expneditures as well as SS. The Reagan tax cuts for the top were financed by higher taxes on workers. I'm sure you were all for that...

The Census data that measures inequality excludes cap gains, so it's even worse than 50%. Re-read my Krauthammer rag. The Reagan-Greenspan increase in SS taxes was supposedly to solve a future deficit. The surplus revenues were used as general revenue. The implication is that SS and Medicare taxes are viewed as income taxes that support ALL government spending. We've been over this. The surplus was a combination of higher cap gains from the internet bubble along Greenspan's belief that NAIRU had fallen below 6%, so he allowed the expansion to continue, and unemployment hit 4%--a greater % of the labor force working means more revenues. I'll bet you a beer that was the bigger impact. So let's see if he's grown up in office yet.

It's time to do your homework.

Give Obama his 8 years, then we'll see.Real growth was higher under carter than bush. Do your homework.

So you're an Austrian. I think we have semantic differences, but we're not too far off. My description is that money is a claim on resources, and when you increase the claims relative to the supply of real things, then the price of those things goes up. However, those claims have to in the hands of people who are buying things. As we agree, most of the liquidity created by the Fed is sitting as excess reserves. What you describe is essentially what I am saying. The difference is that I argue it is the perception/belief that QE will have cause inflation which actually brings it about. Investors reacting to the belief that commodities can act as a store of stable purchasing power, their actions actually make it so. In my case, I argue that the underlying real demand for those resources doesn't justify the investor driven price increases, so the bubble eventually pops when real demand by users declines from the higher prices. Yes, they worked to funnel more money to the 1%. However, with respect to economic growth, the worst performance of any president since WW2.

I could quibble that October would be the appropriate starting date, regardless... Are you really saying all of the massive QE liquidity caused commodity prices to rise on average by 9%/year? If you say you're underwhelmed by my theory, aren't you implying the same when you say that QE is what sparked the rise in commodity prices? If so, where's the underlying supply and demand in your thesis?

You're kidding, yes? The guy uses a cbo projection of a surplus to back his claim, without realizing that same cbo study said the tax cuts would reduce revenues by $1.1 trillion from 2002-11. And the fact that the top 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they paid in 2000?!!? That's support? In a growing economy it took 7 years to generate an additional $84 billion in taxes paid? Look at the irs data he links to. Look at the drop in taxes paid by the top 1%--it drops 3 straight years, 2001-3. Do you know how much more income the top 1% got from 2000-07? They got an extra $672 billion in AGI! Gee, their income went up $672 billion, so you would hope the amount of taxes they paid over that period went up. Duh! In fact, we can estimate their marginal tax rate paid on that increased income, it was 12.5%. Find something serious next time...

Do you want to give me a cherry-picked date for the start of QE1 which gives you that result? Wouldn't you agree that QE1 starts with the bankruptcy of Lehman? Or are you going to pick a date closer to the bottoming out of commodity prices due to the recession? At least you understand that the other QEs have no impact on demand-side inflation as long as banks aren't lending. As anyone who has been around here awhile knows, my take is that QE2, which began in 20104Q, is that it caused a speculative run-up in commodities as investors believed it would lead to inflation. Instead, the artificial commodity bubble was pricked by the lack of underlying demad at the end of April 2011. No. Bush tax cuts caused the budget to go from suplus to deficit once enacted, and this was in an expanding economy. Go check the numbers; I'm not going to do your work. Though here's a bit....Outstanding debt was $5.6 trillion when he came in and $10 trillion when he left. You can't be that daft to not understand the recessions impact on deficits?

Just like 99% of all analysts do. Do you know what commodity prices have done since January 2011? Zzzzz....Bushes tax cuts are what generated the deficits. Do you know what happens Jan 1? As for OCare, as I said, I've seen reports that contradict each other regarding the impact, so I can't say I know what the impact will be. Hope that's clear. Would you like me to do your homework too?

As I said, if you believe in scary deficits, then why wouldn't you support going back to the tax rates (along with new spending cuts) that generated the last surpluses?Seriously, can someone explain why the long term funding gaps need to be solved by January 1? I've seen estimates that claim both--some say OCare saves money, and some say it doesn't. Regardless, there was a huge gap projected before it took effect.

It seems as if the title "worst run defense in the league" follows him wherever he goes...