Deficit Shrinks???

[maluckey]

CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

You created a thread about it so obviously it is getting AT coverage.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

If only Georgie would include the totals from Iraq/Afghanistan in it. Please add $300B to what it is now and see if that schedule is still working for ya.

From one of your own sources listed:

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004.

That total gets adjusted up to $655B. Doesn't quite look as rosey, now does it?

 

[Engineer]

Going in right direction but still sh!tty!


Just borrowing a little under $1,000,000,000 per day!

Throw in 2 Billion per day from the Trade deficit....wow...$3.xx billion pe day between the twin deficits. Nice!

 

[NeoV]

of course we can just pretend our military spending in the middle east doesn't count.........

 

[conjur]

Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:

Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.

Appears the increase in revenue is from coporporate profits and the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, the average American worker is seeing wage increases at or below the rate of inflation. The class gap is widening. We're turning into Brazil.

 

[DAC21]

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Because the MSM doesn't want to report any good news if it evolved the Bush Administration, after all he stole the 2000 election didn't he? And the Carl Rove non issue is more fun to cover.

The deficit is an overblown statistic, being made political by the Democrats. Sure no deficit is better, buy as a matter of fact this country has ran with a deficit for something like 30 of the last 35 years, and as a percentage of GDP it's been much higher in prior administrations. The uninformed and political hacks just look at the $ figure

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur
Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:

Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.

Appears the increase in revenue is from coporporate profits and the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, the average American worker is seeing wage increases at or below the rate of inflation. The class gap is widening. We're turning into Brazil.

Oh you mean the rich paying their 94% of our federal income taxes again?

Poor poor people.

 

[imported_Tango]

Well.. as you can see on the financial markets the things are not like you say. Most traders around the world are going back to Euros after the Dollar mini-rally. They know for sure how to make their counts... trust them over any newspaper statistic...

 

[maluckey]

Playing the Dollar trade is NOT what earned this change. That is not in question. The questions are whether or not this is a result of the tax-cuts under Bush or merely the economy doing it's own thing.

I'm interested all the same as the results speak louder than causes.

 

[dullard]

Here is the actual US deficit for the last 10 years, these numbers include EVERYTHING so no political "forgetting" of some data. Source: Bureau of the Public Debt:

1995: $281B
1996: $251B
1997: $188B
1998: $113B
1999: $130B
2000: $18B
2001: $133B
2002: $421B
2003: $555B
2004: $596B

2005: Projected $355B ignoring war costs, well above $355B with war costs. What was the additional funds this year, something like $80B? That'll put us well into the $400B range. Malukey: Look it is only the 3rd highest ever (even after adjusting for inflation)! :roll: [sarcasm]Wow that is a wonderful thing to be happy about, 3rd largest deficit ever.[/sarcasm]

 

[daveymark]

waiting for the libbies to say the decrease is a result of Clinton being in office....the "it hasn't decreased enough" card has, of course, already been played in this thread.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums??

There have been multiple threads on it. This is old news.

Here is one thread with the same $350B number you just posted. And that thread is a month old. There were about a dozen other threads around that time that were hijacked into this same discussion about the $350B number (and its lack of including war costs).

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: daveymark
waiting for the libbies to say the decrease is a result of Clinton being in office....the "it hasn't decreased enough" card has, of course, already been played in this thread.

See that 2000 number right above you? It say $18B. That's it. Minus $18B. What would the next fiscal year have been? POSITIVE $XB.

I'm waiting for the neoconartists to give credit to Reagan for balancing the budgeting in the 90's. :roll: :laugh:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:

Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.

Appears the increase in revenue is from coporporate profits and the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, the average American worker is seeing wage increases at or below the rate of inflation. The class gap is widening. We're turning into Brazil.

If more TAX revenues are coming from the richer, then that means less is coming from the middle class and poor. This is a good thing, it was a staple of the Kerry campaign; tax the rich more to pay for more social programs.

The US is not turning into Brazil, most of the inflation is coming from housing and petroleum, if wages are keeping up with those, there's not much to complain about...these sectors have had a huge run up as of late. They can take measures to reduce costs at home, like carpooling; there's noting Bush can really do to limit this.

Keeping up with inflation is all you can really ask of companies without significantly effecting growth and sustainability.

 

[dullard]

Oops, misread Darkhawk28's post.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:

Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.

Appears the increase in revenue is from coporporate profits and the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, the average American worker is seeing wage increases at or below the rate of inflation. The class gap is widening. We're turning into Brazil.

If more TAX revenues are coming from the richer, then that means less is coming from the middle class and poor. This is a good thing, it was a staple of the Kerry campaign; tax the rich more to pay for more social programs.

The US is not turning into Brazil, most of the inflation is coming from housing and petroleum, if wages are keeping up with those, there's not much to complain about...these sectors have had a huge run up as of late. They can take measures to reduce costs at home, like carpooling; there's noting Bush can really do to limit this.

Keeping up with inflation is all you can really ask of companies without significantly effecting growth and sustainability.

Nice leap there.

That doesn't prove the middle and poor classes are paying less. All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more due to their expanding stock options and exhorbitant salaries.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:

Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.

Appears the increase in revenue is from coporporate profits and the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, the average American worker is seeing wage increases at or below the rate of inflation. The class gap is widening. We're turning into Brazil.

If more TAX revenues are coming from the richer, then that means less is coming from the middle class and poor. This is a good thing, it was a staple of the Kerry campaign; tax the rich more to pay for more social programs.

The US is not turning into Brazil, most of the inflation is coming from housing and petroleum, if wages are keeping up with those, there's not much to complain about...these sectors have had a huge run up as of late. They can take measures to reduce costs at home, like carpooling; there's noting Bush can really do to limit this.

Keeping up with inflation is all you can really ask of companies without significantly effecting growth and sustainability.

Nice leap there.
That doesn't prove the middle and poor classes are paying less. All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more due to their expanding stock options and exhorbitant salaries.

What?!...you think they are all paying more in taxes? That's an interesting point, after Bush cut taxes across the board; have any eveidence people are paying more taxes?

You wouldn't want to make a leap.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: daveymark
waiting for the libbies to say the decrease is a result of Clinton being in office....the "it hasn't decreased enough" card has, of course, already been played in this thread.

See that 2000 number right above you? It say $18B. That's it. Minus $18B. What would the next fiscal year have been? POSITIVE $XB.

I'm waiting for the neoconartists to give credit to Reagan for balancing the budgeting in the 90's. :roll: :laugh:

thought this thread was about the decrease THIS YEAR. my bad.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: daveymark
thought this thread was about the decrease THIS YEAR. my bad.

Originally it was, but Maluckey hijacked his own thread with this comment: "The questions are whether or not this is a result of the tax-cuts under Bush or merely the economy doing it's own thing". So that opens the door to look at data from 2000 vs 2001.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:

Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.

Appears the increase in revenue is from coporporate profits and the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, the average American worker is seeing wage increases at or below the rate of inflation. The class gap is widening. We're turning into Brazil.

If more TAX revenues are coming from the richer, then that means less is coming from the middle class and poor. This is a good thing, it was a staple of the Kerry campaign; tax the rich more to pay for more social programs.

The US is not turning into Brazil, most of the inflation is coming from housing and petroleum, if wages are keeping up with those, there's not much to complain about...these sectors have had a huge run up as of late. They can take measures to reduce costs at home, like carpooling; there's noting Bush can really do to limit this.

Keeping up with inflation is all you can really ask of companies without significantly effecting growth and sustainability.

Nice leap there.
That doesn't prove the middle and poor classes are paying less. All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more due to their expanding stock options and exhorbitant salaries.

What?!...you think they are all paying more in taxes? That's an interesting point, after Bush cut taxes across the board; have any eveidence people are paying more taxes?

You wouldn't want to make a leap.

I'm not making any sort of leap at all. I'm just saying your logic fails on its basis. You're going off of a lot of assumption with no supporting evidence.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: daveymark
waiting for the libbies to say the decrease is a result of Clinton being in office....the "it hasn't decreased enough" card has, of course, already been played in this thread.

See that 2000 number right above you? It say $18B. That's it. Minus $18B. What would the next fiscal year have been? POSITIVE $XB.

I'm waiting for the neoconartists to give credit to Reagan for balancing the budgeting in the 90's. :roll: :laugh:

No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

Clinton was lucky in that he was in office when the real results of Reaganomics took place.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: daveymark
waiting for the libbies to say the decrease is a result of Clinton being in office....the "it hasn't decreased enough" card has, of course, already been played in this thread.

See that 2000 number right above you? It say $18B. That's it. Minus $18B. What would the next fiscal year have been? POSITIVE $XB.

I'm waiting for the neoconartists to give credit to Reagan for balancing the budgeting in the 90's. :roll: :laugh:

No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

Clinton was lucky in that he was in office when the real results of Reaganomics took place.

well said.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
Certainly good to see the yearly deficit decreasing but it's not really news. Looking at the cbo.gov budget forecasts shows a drop in yearly deficits. This portion of the CSMonitor article caught my eye:

Meanwhile, experts are trying to figure out where the extra revenue came from. Leonard Burman, a former Treasury official and now an economist at the Urban Institute, suspects the April-May revenue jump reflects a surge in nonwithheld personal taxes - big bonuses, for instance, paid by Wall Street firms to their executives and other top employees, or handsome capital gains from stock sales in the resurgent stock markets.

Another factor: The well-to-do have been getting richer, and they still face higher tax rates than average taxpayers or the poor, despite the Bush tax cuts.

Thanks to a rise in corporate profits last year, corporate tax payments have also risen 47 percent. Moreover, a special tax break, a bonus depreciation on investments in plant and equipment, expired at the end of 2004.

Appears the increase in revenue is from coporporate profits and the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, the average American worker is seeing wage increases at or below the rate of inflation. The class gap is widening. We're turning into Brazil.

If more TAX revenues are coming from the richer, then that means less is coming from the middle class and poor. This is a good thing, it was a staple of the Kerry campaign; tax the rich more to pay for more social programs.

The US is not turning into Brazil, most of the inflation is coming from housing and petroleum, if wages are keeping up with those, there's not much to complain about...these sectors have had a huge run up as of late. They can take measures to reduce costs at home, like carpooling; there's noting Bush can really do to limit this.

Keeping up with inflation is all you can really ask of companies without significantly effecting growth and sustainability.

Nice leap there.
That doesn't prove the middle and poor classes are paying less. All classes could be paying more in taxes, just that the rich are getting hit with more due to their expanding stock options and exhorbitant salaries.

What?!...you think they are all paying more in taxes? That's an interesting point, after Bush cut taxes across the board; have any eveidence people are paying more taxes?

You wouldn't want to make a leap.

I'm not making any sort of leap at all. I'm just saying your logic fails on its basis. You're going off of a lot of assumption with no supporting evidence.

Your own quote above said more tax revenue came from the rich, causing the increase in tax revenues. There is no evidence that the middle class and poor are paying more, as you have claimed, but one thing is for sure and you have admitted this and is exeplified by the increase in tax revenues...the rich are paying more of their fair share as they are responisble for the gains this fiscal year.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Krk3561
No, but Reagan's economic policies resulted in the economic conditions that allowed many of the tech companies that fueled the 90's to be created, i.e. Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.

It is wonderful how Republicans:
[*]take credit for the 2nd Reagan term (but not the first),
[*]Ignore much of Bush #1's term,
[*]Take credit for all of Clinton's term, and give it to Reagan and not Bush #1,
[*]Give Clinton credit for 2000/2001 (which was during Bush #2's term),
[*]Then give Bush credit for the recovery after 2001.

It must be nice to just pick and choose the best years.