Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Oh. I Get It Now.



November 02, 2009 – Comments (11)

I wonder what accounts for the other 850 billion in the growth of the National Debt during this time. 

Related article. Hat tip to Chart Porn.


11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 02, 2009 at 10:48 PM, ajm101 (< 20) wrote:

That's what they call delivering for the base...

Report this comment
#2) On November 02, 2009 at 10:52 PM, rd80 (94.78) wrote:

1.  The NYT says the tax cuts "will have saved individuals and cost the government $2.34 billion."  Revenues went up following the tax cuts.  Tax cuts didn't cost the government anything.

2.  The top 1% got ripped off.  They pay 40.4% of taxes, but only got 23.5% of the cuts. There's also a chart at the link showing the top 1% pay a higher percentage of the nations tax revenue than they did before the Bush tax cuts. 

In other words, Bush's tax cuts did what liberals have always wanted to do with the tax code.  They increased revenue and made the tax code more progressive.

From the Tax Foundation link:

"However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation."



Report this comment
#3) On November 02, 2009 at 11:53 PM, ajm101 (< 20) wrote:

Not to threadjack devoish, but rd80:

According to Wikipedia (sourcing the 2004 CIA Factbook) in France, the top 10% in France makes 8.3 times what the bottom 10% does.  In Sweden it was 6.2.  In the US, it was 15.

Even if we had a flat tax, we would 'rely' more on the top 10% more than the bottom 10% more than twice France or Sweden.  So that's not really a measure of progressive taxation as much as income inequality.

And as far as the revenue increasing, that's fine.  1 - they would have increased more without the tax cuts 2 - spending wasn't cut, so the tax cuts were paid for with inflation which impacts lower income brackets more. Report this comment
#4) On November 03, 2009 at 12:09 AM, starbucks4ever (79.83) wrote:


what's your point? Paying higher taxes, more than their fair share, is a natural duty of the top 1%, so your observation merely proves that not even baby Bush could repeal the laws of economics. 

Report this comment
#5) On November 03, 2009 at 6:35 AM, devoish (65.42) wrote:

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them".

Edward Filene  1860-1937

Report this comment
#6) On November 03, 2009 at 7:18 AM, fmahnke (69.33) wrote:


That's a relief.  All this time I thought it had something to do with the Trillion spent on Stimulus, continued spending on 2 wars and auto company/bank bailouts,

Unfortunately, for the democrats, we the people know the truth and will show you today at the polls.  Wasteful gov't spending is a crime against  american people, broken promises are broken promises and there is not a way to spin it, (at least not effectively)

Taxing is one thing,  Taxing and then wasting the money is something altogether different 

Report this comment
#7) On November 03, 2009 at 7:43 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:


I wish you were right about the polls, but the truth is that more and more people and businesses are on the "take" and politicians won't last too long unless those people are "taken" care of :)

The debt train has left the station.  No President can stop Congress.  The only way out of this mess is with inflation.....the greatest tax to the poor :(

On a side note:  To those that want to tax the rich.  Why make people pay taxes at all?  We are all arguing about paying our fair share, but to me it appears that congress along with the past Presidents do not think deficits and debt matter.  From Reagan up to Obama nobody has cut spending.  So why don't we just borrow more and stop collecting taxes?     




Report this comment
#8) On November 03, 2009 at 8:26 AM, fmahnke (69.33) wrote:

All I have time to say at this point is that it is because you need to find someone to lend it.  T_Bonds dont look like a good investment to me,

I think both Reagan and Clinton reduced deficits, Spending cuts in abosute dollars are harder to quanify and I'm off to work so I donlt have time to research,  My recollection is that Govt wasn't dramatically ramped up, as measured in terms of spending. Of course, those were peacetime years and that makes a differnece

I think those businesses and people have been taken care of and dems will still lose,  I base my opinion on three stories I read:

How the AIG haircut got lost in TARP, (another Tim G scam?) (see dwot blog for details)

Why the white house contunues to fight disclosure of Telecom campaign contibutions (reported by Newswwek)

Andy Stern has made 22 visits to the White House I wonder how he will fare in Health Care (oops insurance) reform

I'd bet that even you would have problems defending BHO's promises of Transparency and a Gov;t free of lobbying influences. but I could be wrong

Have a nice day

Report this comment
#9) On November 03, 2009 at 4:14 PM, devoish (65.42) wrote:


Hello again.

That was all interesting information, and possibly accurate too. The debt total was at the end of Bush's reign of terror, and demonstartion of financial acumen.

The debt, 2.4 trillion in tax cuts plus 890 billion in Iraq war, (no wmd's found) was purely discretionary and badly utilized.

And it left the mess we are in today.

Reagan did not reduce deficits. He doubled (tripled?) them. Clinton raised taxes and paid the bills worth paying.

See you later.

Report this comment
#10) On November 03, 2009 at 4:36 PM, devoish (65.42) wrote:

And there are a lot of things I am uhappy about with President Obama's administration and you named a few.

But it will be a cold day in he** and a lot longer than one year before I give this Country back to the Republicans.

Report this comment
#11) On November 03, 2009 at 4:49 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

"The debt, 2.4 trillion in tax cuts plus 890 billion in Iraq war, (no wmd's found) was purely discretionary and badly utilized."
Totally correct
"Granted, deficits by themselves need not present a problem. Deficits are of course only one side of a country’s balance sheet. On the other side are assets. If a company borrows money to make high-return investments, no one is worried—so long as those investments do in fact yield returns. Our soaring deficit is not a concern if the money is spent on education, technology, infrastructure—all investments that historically have yielded very high returns, far higher than the interest rate the government has to pay—because then the returns to our society are far greater than the costs. But, if the money is spent on wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, poorly designed bailouts for banks or tax cuts for upper-income Americans, then there will be no asset corresponding to the increased liabilities, and then there is cause for concern. This seems to be the road we have been heading down for the last eight years and, disappointingly, are to too-large an extent continuing to travel."

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners