Stop lying about the Budget

[NYcarbineer]

Some people have always told the truth about the budget.

The truth is that Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Go to ReaganBushDebt.org

That leads to another point, which is the hidden tax INCREASES that Reagan and Bush and Bush created,

by adding trillions to the national debt:

The Interest on the Debt. The annual interest on the Debt is effectively a government spending program that costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and for all practical purposes, is a perpetual tax, unless by some miracle the debt is ever paid off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

further; that sky blue revenue line past 2011 is a pipe dream, they are using averages ahead of any average we ever took in, which is 18.0% if I recall correctly and as displayed by the long sky blue line for revenues in that very chart.

You get more money but the average of revenue by % doesn't move long term below or above 16.5 to 19%...

No kidding. Receipts continue to be "UNEXPECTEDLY" worse than predicted, just like nearly every economic metric of Obamanomics.

Mainly because Obama got sucked into extending, and adding to, the Bush tax cuts.

There, you just refuted yourself. Good work.

 

[yota5]

This is an interesting thread. I've got to agree with Charles', very profound statement. "It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE ******* SPENDING TO MUCH!!!" With that statement Charles, has proven himself to be a pragmatic, astute, clear thinking individual. You can not spend more money then you take in. That is the first precept of every budget.

Even at the family level you don't run out and buy a new Mercedes when your creditors are banging on the door. Unfortunately that is what the left advocates. These people give a new meaning to the term spend thrift.

During his tenure President Bush created budget deficits. From 2001 to 2008 the federal government took in 140.9 billion dollars. Under President Bush, it spent 156.9 billion dollars. That is an 8 year deficit of 16 billion dollars. The 8 year average deficit came in at 2 billion dollars. He spent the money fighting two wars to protect America. After 9/11 the American economy was in the toilet. Bush cut taxes. Then got out of the way of Business. Americans went back to work. The economy was stable. America had the most robust economy in the world.

Enter President Obama. Over his first 2 years in office total revenues for 2009 and 2010 equal 29.8 billion dollars. Spending for those years equaled 49.1 billion dollars. The deficit under Obama is 19.3 billion dollars. Obama's average deficit over 2 years is a staggering 9.65 billion dollars. The CBO's projected numbers for 2011 are: income 14.4 billion dollars, spending 25.3, billion dollars, deficit 10.9 billion dollars.

There are things that the CBO couldn't factor into to this projection. They couldn't have known about the costs associated with Libya, and increased foreign aid promised by Obama, on his recent South American spend-athon. The job market will lose more jobs due to increased energy cost. Because of this revenues will be cut back further, and the deficit will be increased exponentially.

I don't know how anyone could possibly condone the irresponsible spending in Washington. Or say that it is sustainable. For our economic future to remain viable fiscal responsibility is a must.

Let me quote Charles one more time. "It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE ******* SPENDING TO MUCH!!!"

 

[Polk]

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. The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.

It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE ******* SPENDING TO MUCH!!!

So much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin.

 

[Polk]

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. The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.

It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE ******* SPENDING TO MUCH!!!

You are correct. Tax receipts have gone down somewhat for the past two years because of the recession (which I assume the Obamabots are focusing on), but outlays have gone up significantly.

Revenues have decline a bit more than "somewhat". Revenues are down about a sixth from pre-recession levels.

 

[Polk]

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

Listen you stupid jack ass. All I said was those cuts in taxes produced an increase in Revenue. That is an indisputable fact.

Except it's not a fact. Even Bush's own Treasury officials admit the tax cuts reduced revenue (which isn't exactly a shock, because X% of a number is always going to be a bigger percentage than X-Y% of the same number).

 

[Polk]

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. The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.

It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE ******* SPENDING TO MUCH!!!

You need to prove that the Bush tax cuts CAUSED increased revenues.

Here you go, read:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Due to the DotCom and 9/11 double whammy recession, tax receipts fell. The Bush tax cuts helped spur GDP growth, which resulted in recovery and growth of tax receipts.

That's the real solution: GDP GROWTH.

Somehow, this simple fact eludes you leftwing loons and the Obama Administration.

That chart proves his point. Revenue was below the previous level for five years.

 

[Polk]

Here you go, read:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Due to the DotCom and 9/11 double whammy recession, tax receipts fell. The Bush tax cuts helped spur GDP growth, which resulted in recovery and growth of tax receipts.

That's the real solution: GDP GROWTH.

Somehow, this simple fact eludes you leftwing loons and the Obama Administration.

That doesn't do anything to prove cause and effect.

Try again.

It doesn't prove cause and effect only to an economic illiterate.

For those of use with actual knowledge, spurring GDP growth results in increased tax receipts.

Try reading something beside the Daily Kos.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

If you ever needed evidence Heritage is full of shit, that article provides it.

It claims the 1981 tax cuts increases revenue, it uses higher revenue in 1989 as the evidence. Small problem: that cut was followed by a series of tax hikes (two separate ones in 1982 and another in 1984).

 

[Charles_Main]

As correctly noted above, while spending is up, revenues are nowhere near being at record highs. See the CBO's budget outlook from the beginning of the year:

For 2 years, sure.

The point however.

Is no matter how much we take in.

It seems congress will find a way to spend all of it and then some, and then tell us were not taking in enough money.

Again.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is, trying to take someone seriously.....someone who has a limited-concept of complete-sentences???

Difficult? wow you should talk. I long ago stopped reading your post because of the Strange ways you color words, and use so many emoticons.

LOL

 

[boedicca]

You need to prove that the Bush tax cuts CAUSED increased revenues.

Here you go, read:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Due to the DotCom and 9/11 double whammy recession, tax receipts fell. The Bush tax cuts helped spur GDP growth, which resulted in recovery and growth of tax receipts.

That's the real solution: GDP GROWTH.

Somehow, this simple fact eludes you leftwing loons and the Obama Administration.

That chart proves his point. Revenue was below the previous level for five years.

No it doesn't. By 2005, economic growth due to the tax cuts had increased tax receipts above the prior peak level of 2000.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

Listen you stupid jack ass. All I said was those cuts in taxes produced an increase in Revenue. That is an indisputable fact.

Except it's not a fact. Even Bush's own Treasury officials admit the tax cuts reduced revenue (which isn't exactly a shock, because X% of a number is always going to be a bigger percentage than X-Y% of the same number).

To bad it is not that simple. If you are so smart then I assume you understand that there is more to it than x-y% Targeted tax cuts, can actually cause the amount of economic activity over all to grow. Which can lead to a bigger tax base, and in some cases more tax Revenue.

 

[boedicca]

That doesn't do anything to prove cause and effect.

Try again.

It doesn't prove cause and effect only to an economic illiterate.

For those of use with actual knowledge, spurring GDP growth results in increased tax receipts.

Try reading something beside the Daily Kos.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

If you ever needed evidence Heritage is full of shit, that article provides it.

It claims the 1981 tax cuts increases revenue, it uses higher revenue in 1989 as the evidence. Small problem: that cut was followed by a series of tax hikes (two separate ones in 1982 and another in 1984).

All you are doing is proving your intellectual vacuity, but as we already have ample proof of it, your time would be better (and more profitably) spent washing windshields in an intersection.

 

[KissMy]

As correctly noted above, while spending is up, revenues are nowhere near being at record highs. See the CBO's budget outlook from the beginning of the year:

This "new" austerity by the right seems to crop up essentially when a Democrat is sitting in the oval office. Given the timing, it's also dangerous. Britain and several other countries are employing massive cuts in spending and it's effecting their economies in some very negative ways. Given the fact that most US companies..became super wealthy as a result of government spending (Like Raytheon, Halliburton, Kraft, General Dynamics, GM, Ford, and a host of others) and given that we are still in a "recovery", spending cuts would probably do vastly more harm then good. And of course the cuts the right are suggesting affect the most vunerable in the country more adversely then anyone else.

And it seems that the underfunding of agencies like the IRS basically left them not doing their jobs very well..in terms of collecting taxes. According to several articles I have read, there a billions in uncollected taxes swimming out in the ether. Add in that many other agencies that are suppose to be collecting fees for land usage by oil companies and farming industries are also behind. And left over Bush legislation, like the Medicare drug benefit, could probably stand to be overhauled.

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.

Printing money & government debt, taxes the rich by devaluing their savings. We have just moved from taxing earnings to taxing savings. It all works the same. The irresponsible steal the responsible peoples money.

 

[mudwhistle]

As correctly noted above, while spending is up, revenues are nowhere near being at record highs. See the CBO's budget outlook from the beginning of the year:

For 2 years, sure.

The point however.

Is no matter how much we take in.

It seems congress will find a way to spend all of it and then some, and then tell us were not taking in enough money.

Again.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is, trying to take someone seriously.....someone who has a limited-concept of complete-sentences???

Really??? Seems you have a problem with posting your own thoughts, much less complete sentences, or even a paragraph once in awhile.

Kind of hard to take someone seriously who only posts smart-ass remarks, along with a few cut and paste pics they feel are humorous, but really aren't.

 

[mudwhistle]

That doesn't do anything to prove cause and effect.

Try again.

It doesn't prove cause and effect only to an economic illiterate.

For those of use with actual knowledge, spurring GDP growth results in increased tax receipts.

Try reading something beside the Daily Kos.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

If you ever needed evidence Heritage is full of shit, that article provides it.

It claims the 1981 tax cuts increases revenue, it uses higher revenue in 1989 as the evidence. Small problem: that cut was followed by a series of tax hikes (two separate ones in 1982 and another in 1984).

So Heritage, basically the best economic minds in the country, are full of shit. You'd rather believe a bunch of Marxists or money-grubbing Democrats.

Shows everyone how bright you are.

Only thing the people on the left know how to do is take money, spend it faster then they can steal it, and cause turmoil everywhere they go.

 

[Polk]

Here you go, read:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Due to the DotCom and 9/11 double whammy recession, tax receipts fell. The Bush tax cuts helped spur GDP growth, which resulted in recovery and growth of tax receipts.

That's the real solution: GDP GROWTH.

Somehow, this simple fact eludes you leftwing loons and the Obama Administration.

That chart proves his point. Revenue was below the previous level for five years.

No it doesn't. By 2005, economic growth due to the tax cuts had increased tax receipts above the prior peak level of 2000.

You realize that at a constant rate every year would be a peak, correct? I'm guessing not.

 

[Polk]

Listen you stupid jack ass. All I said was those cuts in taxes produced an increase in Revenue. That is an indisputable fact.

Except it's not a fact. Even Bush's own Treasury officials admit the tax cuts reduced revenue (which isn't exactly a shock, because X% of a number is always going to be a bigger percentage than X-Y% of the same number).

To bad it is not that simple. If you are so smart then I assume you understand that there is more to it than x-y% Targeted tax cuts, can actually cause the amount of economic activity over all to grow. Which can lead to a bigger tax base, and in some cases more tax Revenue.

It can if the tax rate is very high, but it did not and will not at our levels of taxation. Cutting the average tax rate by 5% would require a double-digit growth increases to make up the lost revenue.

 

[Polk]

It doesn't prove cause and effect only to an economic illiterate.

For those of use with actual knowledge, spurring GDP growth results in increased tax receipts.

Try reading something beside the Daily Kos.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

If you ever needed evidence Heritage is full of shit, that article provides it.

It claims the 1981 tax cuts increases revenue, it uses higher revenue in 1989 as the evidence. Small problem: that cut was followed by a series of tax hikes (two separate ones in 1982 and another in 1984).

So Heritage, basically the best economic minds in the country, are full of shit. You'd rather believe a bunch of Marxists or money-grubbing Democrats.

Shows everyone how bright you are.

Only thing the people on the left know how to do is take money, spend it faster then they can steal it, and cause turmoil everywhere they go.

Heritage isn't even a collection of good economic minds, must less the best ones. It's a talk shop for making intellectual sounding arguments to support Republican policy preferences.

 

[mudwhistle]

If you ever needed evidence Heritage is full of shit, that article provides it.

It claims the 1981 tax cuts increases revenue, it uses higher revenue in 1989 as the evidence. Small problem: that cut was followed by a series of tax hikes (two separate ones in 1982 and another in 1984).

So Heritage, basically the best economic minds in the country, are full of shit. You'd rather believe a bunch of Marxists or money-grubbing Democrats.

Shows everyone how bright you are.

Only thing the people on the left know how to do is take money, spend it faster then they can steal it, and cause turmoil everywhere they go.

Heritage isn't even a collection of good economic minds, must less the best ones. It's a talk shop for making intellectual sounding arguments to support Republican policy preferences.

That's your opinion. Problem is the Heritage Club has been in existence long before there even was a Republican party. I tend to believe them over a bunch of left-wing anarchists.

 

[gekaap]

The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.

Citation needed.