>>>>>>>Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html?KEYWORDS=bush+tax+rates+gdp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That may be true. The answer, though, surely does not lie in tax cuts to the rich. That increases the deficit rather than reducing it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your 2nd bolded statement contradicts the first. The point of the article, and his "law" is regardless of the specific tax rates, the revenues to the government are the same as a % of GDP. Deficits are increased and decreased by spending not tax rates.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Trickle-down economics is the canard that just won't go away.
>>>>>
>>>>>Economic realities are stubborn that way. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>>Just to keep this factual, Obama has not proposed raising taxes on the top 2%. His position was to agree with the Republican proposal of extending the "temporary" tax cuts of 10 years ago for all but the top 2%. They would go back to the tax rate they had before. Yes, he caved -- this guy needs a serious LBJ injection -- but he did not propose a tax increase.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your premise is a distinction without a difference, ie perfect DC spin. ;) If I accept your premise that allowing "temporary" tax cuts to expire is not increasing taxes, then I must conclude that imposing those same "temporary" tax cuts was not decreasing taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>The real world results of the 2001 & 2003 tax deals was that individual income tax rates were reduced or eliminated across all tax brackets through 2010. The result of the 2010 tax deal was to extend those existing brackets through 2012.
>>>>>
>>>>>>CLARIFICATION: The Republican proposal was to extend the Bush tax cut for everyone. Obama wanted to exempt the top 2%.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thus, raising their existing income tax rate.
>>>>
>>>>The distinction is in fact a profound one. The Bush tax cut was passed specifically as a temporary measure. The top 2% are back to exactly the same rate they had before the temporary break (giveaway).
>>>
>>>UPDATE : From today's speech : My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans
>>>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/13/text-of-obama-speech-on-the-deficit/
>>>
>>>Does eliminating a deduction count as a tax increase? ;)
>>>
>>>>Did trickle-down economics do anything for anyone but the rich under Reagan? Did they do anything under Bush II?
>>>
>>>The laws of supply and demand are not subject to deviation regardless of who is occupying the presidency. Lowering tax rates on the suppliers side of the equation has accelerated the growth of the entire country.
>>>http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/us-gdp-1900-2008
>>>Note: This graph is in 2008 dollars.
>>>
>>>Put your mouse on 1982 and have a look at the following growth rate as compared to before. That is a fact that you too can "see". ;) Now, if we understand that federal revenues as a % of GDP stayed roughly the same during this period then we know that in actual dollars those revenues in real dollars, increased.
>>>
>>>>The spread between rich and poor has only increased.
>>>
>>>Simply looking at income levels does not tell the whole story. Since you love the Old Grey Lady, here you go. ;)
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html
>>>
>>>>We are now about the same as a third world nation in that regard.
>>>
>>>There's that populist spin again. ;)
>>>
>>>When someone refers to the “income gap”, they make reference to that dichotomy of rich and poor that so many populists have used in the past. The implication is that people are not individuals; they are either upper-class or lower-class. There can be no middle ground, no unity, and no movement. To dissect what the actual purpose this argument serves, one must compare it to reality, as well as look at what the end goal is for those who promote it.
>>>
>>>Facts do not matter much to those who rely solely on pathos for political power. The truth about the income gap in America today is that there is indeed a difference between what the richest and poorest Americans earn. But the measurement of this gap generally only takes a look at the top 20% of earners juxtaposed with those below the “poverty line”. The problem with this measurement is that the poverty line is not static over time and does not take into consideration movement in and out of “poverty” and increases in the standard of living. The line is arbitrarily set based on what the government deems to be poor at any given time.
>>>
>>>Looking at a report put out by the Census Bureau prior to the 2010 Census, movement in and out of poverty can have a major impact on who is considered “poor”. If the standard was those who were below the poverty line for the entirety of 2004-2007, there would be only a 2% poverty rate for that time. But when looking at people who were below the line for just two months during that period, the poverty rate is 32%. Comparing a “poor” family over time also presents some problems with the poverty line. A “poor” family from 1964 (the year the first poverty thresholds were proposed) looked nothing like a “poor” family does today. Referencing a Heritage Foundation paper from 2007, almost 75% of poor households own a car, 80% of poor households have air conditioning, and a whopping 97% of poor households have a color television. Yet the poverty level has been somewhat steady between 13% and 17% of the population considered poor.
>>>
>>>http://www.purduereview.com/politics/rich-and-poor/
>>>
>>>>This is pointless. You don't budge from the "facts" as you choose to see them.
>>>
>>>I change my opinions based upon facts not the other way around. I present my case with numbers, examples and experience. I do not need to engage in rhetoric nor spin to defend or deflect from the obvious precisely because I have factual evidence and history on my side. The supply side. ;)
>>
>>I am going to let this go. You are one of the good guys here despite our profound disagreement about economics. My last comment (not trying to have the last word) is that you are looking only at the revenue side. The deficit skyrocketed under both Reagan and GWB. The chickens come home to roost one way or another.

I'll let it go with one last fact you can "see" for yourself.

1. Download the Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2016 from the Office of Management and budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z2.xls

2. Order it by the column E (Total Surplus or Deficit (−) ascending)
3. Filter out the estimates for the next 6 years so we're only dealing with actual numbers not hypothetical.
4. Take note that the top 7 deficits were run by FDR and Obama. FDR had a world war to deal with. Obama? Hint: Before you say economic collapse, note that the first Great Depression year that appears (1934) ranks 9th. Bonus points if you know what FDR signed into law the year prior. ;)
5. The #8 position is 1983 under Reagan
6. Take note that W will not appear until 28th (2004)
7. If you include the estimates for the next 4 years, 2004 falls to 32nd.

>BTW, that piece from the NY Times was an op-ed piece, i.e. opinion. They run op-eds as well as regular columns from across the political spectrum. William Safire was a columnist for many years and he wrote speeches for Richard Nixon.

Due to your frequent citing of Krugman, I assumed op-eds in the Times were fair game. ;)