----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:34 AM Subject: Re: Plus the NY Times Re: The Washington Post Editorial on Iraq
> At 10:59 PM 2/5/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: > >> Indeed, from 1994 to 1999, capital gains reports under Adjusted Gross > >> Income more than tripled in nominal terms. > > > >That's because there was a capital gains tax cut in '97. It give folks a > >chance to cash in on their capital gains while paying minimal taxes. > > If that was the predominant effect, it would have occurred in 1998, not > 1999 - so that's not an explanation. I don't know what model would > support an increase in capital gains revenues due to "cash-ins" two years > after a capital gains tax cut. > > Indeed, aren't tax cuts supposed to *decrease* revenues two years after the > cut in your mind????? A short term cashing of capital gains after a cut was never questioned. Its the long term impact that was questioned. > >Now, the Cato numbers were probably from the late '90s, so I'll be happy to > >agree that the average for Clinton was probably close to $40 billion in > >revenue. That's a small fraction of the $300 billion deficit. > > O.k., war spending was a bigger portion of that than I had realized..... No, that's only part of it. He cut taxes by about 100 billion per year so far, and the total shortfall from projections due to the downturn was about 100 billion, by his own estimation. Also using powerpoint to read a graph available at http://www.house.gov/budget/hearings/danielsstmnt071602.pdf I found that, by the OMB numbers, the average capital gains revenue for Clinton was 64 billion...which was more than I guessed from Cato. The projected average for Bush's first 2 years was 62.5 billion. Dan M. Actually, by Bush's own numbers the decrease in projected revenue was > But it is a very significant portion of whatever measly surplus Clinton > managed to engineer with what you described as his "balance between > spending and taxes." > > >"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic." :-) > > Yeah, Johnson and Carter were both Economic Superstars, right? A very interesting question, and I'm glad you asked it. Let me quote the numbers for the average GDP improvement from the last year of the previous administration to the last year of the administration in question. (numbers are from the bea) Johnson 5.2% Carter 3.3% Reagan 3.3% Bush 2.0% Clinton 4.3% So, I'll admit that, for overall GDP Carter was no better than Reagan, and not much better than Bush. He definately was a low performance democrat. > Oh yes, > and the Clinton Recession/slow-down is now about to complete its second > year. But obviously, we all would be wealthy if we had just given Clinton > a third term, right? Uh-huh. Let me state it simply: trickle down economics doesn't work now any more than it did in the 1920s. What happens is that the income gain is concentrated in very few hands, and does not stimulate the economy as much as a broad based improvement. For example, the median family income rose only 4% from 80 to 92. The top 5% income, on the other hand, rose 31% during that period. The basis of the economic view of the Republicans is that the rich are the driving force in the economy. Thus, focusing policy on what improves their income is the best thing a government can do. It hasn't worked in the last 80 years, but it is still being pushed. That is, btw, a good indication that economics is not a science. That doesn't happen in the sciences. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
