Obama's electability

No Joe, I wasn't kidding. I wasn't thinking of any single year when I entered the post but was thinking of the overall revenues since the 2003 tax act.

I did correct the 'quadrupled' part, however, as I remembered the numbers incorrectly.

Capital gains revenues increased, from a depressed level due to cutting taxes. Cutting capital gains taxes does not increase federal revenues, but decreases them. It seems I've had to explain this over and over here, as people who don't know much about economics try and push a position which economists never do.


http://www.cbpp.org/press-points.htm


BTW, we are back on pace here in 2008 for 410-450 billion dollars in budget deficit. Why did the 'tax cuts' stop working?

Cycloptichorn

Taxes and Revenues [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Yesterday I noted that Bush's tax cuts had caused revenue to be lower than it would otherwise have been. A number of people have emailed me saying that I'm wrong: Revenues have been growing fast, and are higher than they were before the tax cuts took effect.

That shows that the tax cuts were compatible with rising revenues, not that they caused them. The tax cuts may have boosted our economic growth, but we would have had some growth without them. So the question is whether tax cuts boosted growth so much that they ended up raising money.

I can't think of any serious economist who thinks that happened. The 2003 Economic Report of the President said that "[a]lthough the economy grows in response to tax reductions... it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity." Bush's own Treasury Department has disavowed /the view that Bush's tax cuts have raised revenue.Rob Portman and Ed Lazear, while serving in the Bush administration (as head of the OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers, respectively), said that the tax cuts had reduced federal revenue.

I'll give the last word to Alan Viard, an economist who worked at the White House before joining AEI. Last year, the Washington Post quoted him: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Foxfyre wrote:

No Joe, I wasn't kidding. I wasn't thinking of any single year when I entered the post but was thinking of the overall revenues since the 2003 tax act.

Well, that's idiotic. Why would anyone compare a single year's tax revenues with the combined revenues from a number of years afterward? That comparison doesn't tell us anything about anything. It's apples and oranges.

Foxfyre wrote:

I did correct the 'quadrupled' part, however, as I remembered the numbers incorrectly.

No, you didn't. On the one hand you say that you were comparing a single year's tax revenues with combined years' tax revenues. If that's the case, then revenues didn't double -- they quintupled from 2004 to 2006 (inclusive) over 2003. On the other hand, now you're saying that you were comparing single year revenues with single year revenues, and that you got it wrong because revenues only doubled.

You can't be making both (incorrect) arguments simultaneously. You can't be comparing combined-year revenues with single-year revenues and single-year revenues with single-year revenues at the same time using the same numbers. It's not that you don't remember your numbers correctly, it's that you just simply are full of ****.

On the issue of the effects of capital gains, however, I'm right and Obama (and all his disciples defending him on that) are wrong.

I can't think of any serious economist who thinks that happened. The 2003 Economic Report of the President said that "[a]lthough the economy grows in response to tax reductions... it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity." Bush's own Treasury Department has disavowed the view that Bush's tax cuts have raised revenue.Rob Portman and Ed Lazear, while serving in the Bush administration (as head of the OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers, respectively), said that the tax cuts had reduced federal revenue.

On the issue of the effects of capital gains, however, I'm right and Obama (and all his disciples defending him on that) are wrong.

Challenge that if you can.

You should take care not to invoke my name, if you don't like having the foolishness in your posts illuminated.

Foxfyre wrote:

On the issue of the effects of capital gains, however, I'm right and Obama (and all his disciples defending him on that) are wrong.

Challenge that if you can.

It makes very little difference which charts you use, they do not demonstrate the effects of the capital gains tax cuts on revenue, because they can't. The relative speck of money not taxed by the change is not even the most significant factor in the following year's receipts, let alone the only factor. (For instance; our economy took a massive hit after 911 and then slowly recovered.) Do you really think a minor Tax change that affected a small percentage of citizens is the only reason revenues increased? That's pretty silly.

That's not to say an argument couldn't be made that lower taxes can increase revenues; just that you, Foxfyre, have failed to present one.

Look Joe, I admitted I misspoke on the quadrupled part.

Now you can badger and bully and nitpick to your heart's content trying to make me look like I'm full of **** and ignore the point I was attempting to make, but you still can't make a case that cutting the capital gains tax has not increased federal revenues. But this is what I have come to expect from Obamamaniacs--attack the messengers; try to make THEM look like bad guys for daring to attack your messiah.

Okay, you and Obill and others don't like the way I express myself. You repeatedly go out of your way to try to make me look like an idiot or dishonest or accuse me of whatever.

Foxfyre wrote:

Look Joe, I admitted I misspoke on the quadrupled part.

You didn't misspeak. You were making up statistics and hoping that nobody would call you on it.

Now you can badger and bully and nitpick to your heart's content trying to make me look like I'm full of **** and ignore the point I was attempting to make, but you still can't make a case that cutting the capital gains tax has not increased federal revenues. But this is what I have come to expect from Obamamaniacs--attack the messengers; try to make THEM look like bad guys for daring to attack your messiah.

Well, I don't know if cutting capital gains taxes increased federal revenues. The table that I posted only shows that capital gains tax revenues increased in the years after 2003, but it's impossible to extrapolate from that a cause-and-effect relationship between tax cuts and subsequent tax revenues. After all, capital gains tax revenues still haven't matched the levels they reached in 1999-2000, when the top rate was 20%. Really, if you wanted to argue that we should raise capital gains tax revenues, you should be arguing for a return to the tax rates that were in effect during the Clinton administration. But then you're not interested in making that argument -- you're just interested in supporting the Republican position, and you're not above making crap up when you do it.

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Obama leads McCain by six points (47%-41%) among registered voters. While polls can't accurately gauge an election five months out -- after all, so much can still happen -- it's worth putting Obama's lead into this perspective: Bush never trailed Kerry in the 2004 NBC/WSJ polls that measured registered voters' preference for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And Bush's lead was never bigger than four points.

Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.

Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:
March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

In terms of electability, this is an interesting tidbit from First Read:

Quote:

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Obama leads McCain by six points (47%-41%) among registered voters. While polls can't accurately gauge an election five months out -- after all, so much can still happen -- it's worth putting Obama's lead into this perspective: Bush never trailed Kerry in the 2004 NBC/WSJ polls that measured registered voters' preference for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And Bush's lead was never bigger than four points.

Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.

Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:
March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Look Joe, I admitted I misspoke on the quadrupled part.

You didn't misspeak. You were making up statistics and hoping that nobody would call you on it.

No dear, I was working from faulty memory. There is a difference.

You don't know me or what I know or what I have experienced or what my motives are. You certainly show that you're not above slinging **** that you make up about me, however, and you can support it with nothing other than your own imagination, however.

Capital gains were declining in the period immediately before 9/11 because we were easing into what would almost certainly be a mild recession at that time and a whole lot of the major profit taking had already happened. 9/11 changed everything however pushing us into a deeper and longer recession than would otherwise have occurred, and the stock market tanked big time. When the market is down, so are capital gains likely to be down since that is where a huge chunk of capital gains are created.

The links I posted and the table you posted, however, show capital gains revenues that can be analyzed against increases in capital gains taxes and decreases in capital gains taxes and the results appear to be be pretty consistent. You can try to make a case that there is no correlation, and if you can go for it, but otherwise I think the evidence shows and it is reasonable to believe that reduction in capital gains taxes have traditionally produced increases in revenues and increases in capital gains taxes have traditionally produced decreases in revenues.

And you still can't get around Obama acknowledging that in a backhanded way but discoutning it because it still isn't 'fair' that the wealthy don't pay more even if it will reduce revenues to the national treasury.

The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed Bush at 47 percent and Gore at 44 percent. Gore had trailed Bush in head-to-head matchups throughout 1999.

NBC-Journal poll results released Wednesday, Bush led Gore in the presidential race, 46 percent to 41 percent.

Bush also led, 49% to 41%, in an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday.

Bush had a 6-point lead in an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday, with Nader at 8 percent and Buchanan at 2 percent.

An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday showed Bush leading Gore by 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent.

An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll had Bush ahead 48 percent to 42 percent among likely voters, with a 4-percentage point error margin.