Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: maluckey
Nothing says roaring like record governmental revenues. Deficit is being paid down substantially faster than expected. Unemployment is very low, interest rates are low, and despite 12 million souls evading taxation (and killing Social Security), everything is booming. Imagine if those freeloaders actually PAID TAXES like the rest of us...
I think you need a reality check.
Government revenues reach new record highs almost every year because of inflation and a normal economic growth. You don't "pay down" deficits, you pay down debt. The federal debt continues to skyrocket. Unemployment
statistics are artificially low, ignoring the millions of people who have been forced to accept part-time or lower-quality, lower-paying jobs, and those who were employed, would like to work again, but have given up on actually finding employment. Interest rates are hardly low, though they're not bad. Finally, while it's great that the Dow is up, wages remain stagnant, meaning this "recovery" is real for investors, not so real for working stiffs.
**
BUZZZZ** Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
Let me know how that crow tastes, mkay?
Go to the link below and turn to page 26 and there you will see that revenue hit a peak in 2000 (Tech Bubble) and went down in 2001 and even lower in 2002 and 2003.
Yawn. Did you read you own link? Federal revenue hit a new record 41 out of 45 years -- 91% of the time -- from 1955 until 2000, through good economies and bad. In 2000, the economy went to pot ... and Bush cut taxes. The result? An unprecedented four-year string of lower revenues, finally ending in 2005.
If anything, this suggests your bleating about tax cuts increasing federal revenue is pure partisan propaganda. It certainly isn't supported by the actual data. I'll agree it doesn't
prove reduced revenues were caused by George's tax loans -- correlation does not prove causation -- but it's absolutely delusional to look at the data and continue to claim they increased revenue.
If you look at page 28 you will also see that in 1998, 1999 and 2000 government revenue was at 20% of GDP, the ONLY time it has been that high since World War 2. Under Bush it has been restored to its traditional (post WW 2) 17-18% of GDP. (Edit: 40 year average is 18.2% of GDP so right now we are below that, while under Clinton we were 2-3% higher.)
More misdirection. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of tax cuts on revenue.
Since you stumbled into it, however, let's take a little broader look at the data instead of cherry-picking stats you want to spin. We'll note, for example, that federal outlays
exceeded 20% of GDP every year from 1975 through 1996,
peaking under Reagan with six straight years above 22% ('81 - '86). That's right, excluding WWII, your god Ronnie was the worst offender ever when it comes to big government.
Outlays finally dropped back below 20% in 1997, and coupled with higher taxes, actually balanced the federal budget in 1998 for the first time in 28 years. The three years you're whining about are three years of balanced budgets. That's not a coincidence. (See, one of the things they don't seem to teach in Republican accounting classes is that balancing one's budget requires revenue greater than outlays. Go figure. But please dont tell them. It will crush their delusions of being the party of fiscal responsibility.)
BTW: The estimated federal deficit for FY 2006 was $260 billion as of a month ago, that is down from the estimate of $423 billion when the FY budget was created. That means we trimmed $160 billion off the expected deficit in ONE year, damn good deal. $260 billion is also lower than FY 2005's $318 billion, we ARE moving in the right direction on deficits, lets hope it stays that way.
Unfortunately, the last time I checked, those deficit numbers are pure smoke and mirrors since they exclude Bush's self-declared off-budget expenses like Iraq and Katrina. I also constantly get a chuckle out of the Bush faithful desperately stretching to give Bush credit for finally reducing the deficits he created. Can you lower the bar any more?
If we keep up triming the deficit at this rate then we should balance the budget in 2008, before Bush leaves office.
Yet the data you linked shows deficit projections every year through the end of the chart in 2011. They also assume a 38% increase in the GDP over the next six years. Seems a bit optimistic to me, but we can hope.
We ALL need to keep our eyes on this and make sure the people in DC don't start to spend like crazy again.
Historical tables on page 26
Yep, that's why we need the Democrats to take at least one house of Congress this year. We need the gridlock to keep spending in check.