Stop lying about the Budget

[Big Fitz]

It seems that most rational people believe the government is spending too much but want to protect their own private slice of the pie at all cost.

that is why nothing gets done. Everyone needs a cut, equal across the board and a budgetary freeze for the next decade or so and let inflation and economic growth take care of the rest.

I agree. Cuts have to be broad based. Everyone has to feel it.

The only 'total cuts' I would like to see would be the end of redundancy. First combine the remainder under one office and lay off staff accordingly to eliminate duplication of effort. Then reduce the budget by the amount reduced by staff cuts and end of duplication, then take 10% more off of all of that. THEN give the combined budget to the new consolidated department.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is the US government spending to much? You bet. But now really is not the time to cut spending. Now is the time to increase revenues, rebuild infrastructure and continue to support the recovery. Once the economy is humming again...then austerity would be in order.

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I heard an Obama mouth piece on TV last night say "the US is cash strapped"

Well now, that is not actually the truth. Saying it that way makes it sound like were just not taking in enough money.

The truth is were taking in more money every year than ever before. By a long shot.

Yeah.....but, the LONGEST shot is.....

....GOIN' OFFSHORE!!!!!

 

[snjmom]

Actually they don't sit on it, they invest it, which actually keeps it in the economy.

Actually, they are sitting on it, as we speak. Due to uncertainty.

As for economics, I've never seen an economic model that didn't include government. So you may fuck off with your pissy little admonishments on how I should post.

 

[The T]

It seems that most rational people believe the government is spending too much but want to protect their own private slice of the pie at all cost.

that is why nothing gets done. Everyone needs a cut, equal across the board and a budgetary freeze for the next decade or so and let inflation and economic growth take care of the rest.

I agree. Cuts have to be broad based. Everyone has to feel it.

The only 'total cuts' I would like to see would be the end of redundancy. First combine the remainder under one office and lay off staff accordingly to eliminate duplication of effort. Then reduce the budget by the amount reduced by staff cuts and end of duplication, then take 10% more off of all of that. THEN give the combined budget to the new consolidated department.

Consolodation. That should keep lawmakers busy for the next 4 or 5 decades...and stop them from crafting any more damage.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The truth of the matter is that due to tax cuts, current tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are lower than they've been since 1950.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually going by Greenbeard's chart..they didn't produce an increase in revenue. They either went down..or stayed flat.

That's what happens when you look at secondary sources rather than raw data.

Revenue, by FY, in Billions of $
2002 1853
2003 1782
2004 1880
2005 2153
2006 2406
2007 2568 < Record high
2008 2524
2009 2104

Personal income tax revenue, by FY, in billions of$
2002 858
2003 793
2004 809
2005 927
2006 1043
2007 1163 < Record high
2008 1145
2009 915

Corporate tax revenue, by FY, in billions of $
2002 148
2003 131
2004 189
2005 278
2006 353
2007 370 < Record high
2008 304
2009 138

Historical Budget Data

I'm -sure- you'll find some way to deny the truth as it has been put to you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Actually they don't sit on it, they invest it, which actually keeps it in the economy.

Actually, they are sitting on it, as we speak. Due to uncertainty.

As for economics, I've never seen an economic model that didn't include government. So you may fuck off with your pissy little admonishments on how I should post.

And in what form is that money? Bed Mattresses?

No, it's out there invested in something. It's just in something safe and tax free with no velocity in the economy because it's too volitile and and really, quite risky thanks to government tinkering, preventing the weak players from failing and letting the market take it's course as it will sooner or later with a bigger and bigger crash as more and more piles up to fall.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The truth of the matter is that due to tax cuts, current tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are lower than they've been since 1950.

Revenues by Major Source, 1970 to 2009, as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product
Federal Income tax, by FY, as % of GDP
1970 8.9
1971 8
1972 8.1
1973 7.9
1974 8.3
1975 7.8
1976 7.6
1977 8
1978 8.2
1979 8.7
1980 9
1981 9.4
1982 9.2
1983 8.4
1984 7.8
1985 8
1986 7.9
1987 8.4
1988 8
1989 8.3
1990 8.1
1991 7.9
1992 7.6
1993 7.7
1994 7.8
1995 8
1996 8.5
1997 9
1998 9.6
1999 9.6
2000 10.2
2001 9.7
2002 8.1
2003 7.2
2004 6.9
2005 7.5
2006 7.9
2007 8.4
2008 7.9
2009 6.4
Av 1970-2009 8.2
Av 1982-1989 8.3
Av 1994-2001 9.0
Av 2002-2009 7.5
Av
Looks like the Bush-era income tax revenues, as a % of GDP, were only slightly lower than the 40-year historical average.

Historical Budget Data

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yeah, the Bush tax cuts worked out great. Look at all the jobs all around. Where is unemployment now? 4...5%?

Sure, 9/11, the housing market collapse, the dot com burst and recession weren't factors, joblessness could only have been affected by the tax cuts so they didn't work.

Moron.

Dont forget cloudy days

 

[Toro]

The truth of the matter is that due to tax cuts, current tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are lower than they've been since 1950.

Revenues by Major Source, 1970 to 2009, as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product
Federal Income tax, by FY, as % of GDP
1970 8.9
1971 8
1972 8.1
1973 7.9
1974 8.3
1975 7.8
1976 7.6
1977 8
1978 8.2
1979 8.7
1980 9
1981 9.4
1982 9.2
1983 8.4
1984 7.8
1985 8
1986 7.9
1987 8.4
1988 8
1989 8.3
1990 8.1
1991 7.9
1992 7.6
1993 7.7
1994 7.8
1995 8
1996 8.5
1997 9
1998 9.6
1999 9.6
2000 10.2
2001 9.7
2002 8.1
2003 7.2
2004 6.9
2005 7.5
2006 7.9
2007 8.4
2008 7.9
2009 6.4
Av 1970-2009 8.2
Av 1982-1989 8.3
Av 1994-2001 9.0
Av 2002-2009 7.5
Av
Looks like the Bush-era income tax revenues, as a % of GDP, were only slightly lower than the 40-year historical average.

Historical Budget Data

The decline in federal income tax revenues is actually fairly significant. The average from 1970 to 2001 was 8.43%. The average for the entire time period was 8.23%. From 2002 through to 2009, it was 7.54%. The standard deviation from the mean is 0.76%. Thus the decline in tax revenues from 02 to 09 is 1.16 standard deviations from the 1970-2001 average, which is fairly significant. If you look at standard deviation for 1970-01, it was 0.69%. Using that as the benchmark, 02-09 is 1.3 standard deviations from the mean.

In fairness, that includes 2009, one of the worst years in decades. But even if you exclude 2009, average federal income tax was 7.7% of GDP from 02 to 08, still over one standard deviation away from the 70-01 mean.

Looking at it another way, in only two of those 40 years was income tax to GDP above the average, 2002 and 2007. The four lowest years were during this time period -> 2005, 2003, 2004 and 2009 in descending order. So the Bush income tax cuts had a significant impact on the Treasury.

 

[Polk]

Is the US government spending to much? You bet. But now really is not the time to cut spending. Now is the time to increase revenues, rebuild infrastructure and continue to support the recovery. Once the economy is humming again...then austerity would be in order.

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

And you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you'd still have a deficit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The truth of the matter is that due to tax cuts, current tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are lower than they've been since 1950.

Revenues by Major Source, 1970 to 2009, as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product
Federal Income tax, by FY, as % of GDP
1970 8.9
1971 8
1972 8.1
1973 7.9
1974 8.3
1975 7.8
1976 7.6
1977 8
1978 8.2
1979 8.7
1980 9
1981 9.4
1982 9.2
1983 8.4
1984 7.8
1985 8
1986 7.9
1987 8.4
1988 8
1989 8.3
1990 8.1
1991 7.9
1992 7.6
1993 7.7
1994 7.8
1995 8
1996 8.5
1997 9
1998 9.6
1999 9.6
2000 10.2
2001 9.7
2002 8.1
2003 7.2
2004 6.9
2005 7.5
2006 7.9
2007 8.4
2008 7.9
2009 6.4
Av 1970-2009 8.2
Av 1982-1989 8.3
Av 1994-2001 9.0
Av 2002-2009 7.5
Av
Looks like the Bush-era income tax revenues, as a % of GDP, were only slightly lower than the 40-year historical average.

Historical Budget Data

The decline in federal income tax revenues is actually fairly significant.
The average from 1970 to 2001 was 8.43%. The average for the entire time period was 8.23%. From 2002 through to 2009, it was 7.54%. The standard deviation from the mean is 0.76%. Thus the decline in tax revenues from 02 to 09 is 1.16 standard deviations from the 1970-2001 average, which is fairly significant. If you look at standard deviation for 1970-01, it was 0.69%. Using that as the benchmark, 02-09 is 1.3 standard deviations from the mean.

I didn't way it wasn't significant, I said it was only slightly lower than the average. And it was.
The point of my post was to counter the implied claim of revenue armageddon from the GWB tax cuts. No such thing - it's not like there weren't record revenues for three of the years under GWB.

So the Bush income tax cuts had a significant impact on the Treasury.

Show that correlation = causation.

 

[Big Fitz]

Is the US government spending to much? You bet. But now really is not the time to cut spending. Now is the time to increase revenues, rebuild infrastructure and continue to support the recovery. Once the economy is humming again...then austerity would be in order.

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

And you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you'd still have a deficit.

How about eliminating the unconstitutional usurpation of power via the federal government? How'd that do for ending the deficit?

 

[Chris]

Is the US government spending to much? You bet. But now really is not the time to cut spending. Now is the time to increase revenues, rebuild infrastructure and continue to support the recovery. Once the economy is humming again...then austerity would be in order.

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

And you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you'd still have a deficit.

Define "discretionary spending."

 

[Chris]

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

And you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you'd still have a deficit.

How about eliminating the unconstitutional usurpation of power via the federal government? How'd that do for ending the deficit?

How about raising taxes on the top 1% and cutting the defense budget.

That's what Clinton did and he balanced the budget.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is the US government spending to much? You bet. But now really is not the time to cut spending. Now is the time to increase revenues, rebuild infrastructure and continue to support the recovery. Once the economy is humming again...then austerity would be in order.

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

And you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you'd still have a deficit.

Which is why you cut the "mandatory" spending as well which is anything but mandatory.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

And you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you'd still have a deficit.

How about eliminating the unconstitutional usurpation of power via the federal government? How'd that do for ending the deficit?

Almost all of the accumulated debt of the last 30 years can be attributed to increases in defense spending that were not paid for, via taxes, on a pay as you go basis,

and since most conservatives insist that defense spending is constitutional,

your idea, while appealing to the right, does nothing to solve the problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You could take every penny from every person making $250k and above, and you'd still run a $1000B deficit.

Given that, how, exactly, do you plan to deal with the deficit?

And you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you'd still have a deficit.

Define "discretionary spending."

Most defense spending is considered discretionary; that's why you'll normally hear the caveat

"non-defense discretionary spending" especially from the militarist right.

What Is Non-Defense Discretionary Spending?

Click on the pieces of the pie and they break down in detail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people need to face reality. You're never going to get the budget balanced on the backs of the 'other' guys. It's politically impossible.