Rise in Revenues Cut Deficits

[DKW 86 7,426]

Link

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

[Auburn85 432]

we say "yay, the economy seems to be in decent shape"..but democrats will play this off as no big deal and attack Bush and republicans

[WarTim 3,456]

"A rising , I hate to use the word, "tide" lifts ALL ships."

The Gipper was right all along, as per his usual.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Sure would be nice if this rise in revenues was accompanied by a corresponding drop in spending. But with this war and the new Medicare Rx benefit coming, that's not likely to happen soon. *sigh*

But it is nice to see that the notion of tax cuts causing overall revenues to rise is still intact.

[TrueBlue72 0]

More bad news for the liberals and their American hating friends. If things keep getting better, they're going to have to get Dan Rather back out of retirement to fabricate a few more bad news stories for their negative campaigns.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

More bad news for the liberals and their American hating friends.  If things keep getting better, they're going to have to get Dan Rather back out of retirement to fabricate a few more bad news stories for their negative campaigns.

168697[/snapback]

Before Dubya the highest deficit in history was 290 billion. Now 325-350 billion is good news? Talk about the "soft bigotry of low expectations."...

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."

[Auburn85 432]

TT, do you want the deficit to go down? Do you think that you're suppose to blink and then the deficit is down to zero?

The deficit is going down and you can't even acknowledge that. Yeah, the deficit is still high, but its going down.

We can't go back to 2000 and replay what is done with the surplus can we? We can't go back can we? The defict is going down, not up. Spending needs to be controlled.

The stock market is still over 10,000

Employment rate is overing around 5%

House sales have been booming

And all this is going on despite high oil prices

People complain, but they're not cutting back on driving. Gas isn't gonna go down if people continue to drive at the same rate.

but I know it won't change your mindset, just like most of your articles wont change my mindset

[TexasTiger 12,949]

TT, do you want the deficit to go down? Do you think that you're suppose to blink and then the deficit is down to zero?

The deficit is going down and you can't even acknowledge that. Yeah, the deficit is still high, but its going down.

We can't go back to 2000 and replay what is done with the surplus can we? We can't go back can we? The defict is going down, not up. Spending needs to be controlled.

The stock market is still over 10,000

Employment rate is overing around 5%

House sales have been booming

And all this is going on despite high oil prices

People complain, but  they're not cutting back on driving. Gas isn't gonna go down if people continue to drive at the same rate.

but I know it won't change your mindset, just like most of your articles wont change my mindset

168704[/snapback]

Am I glad its moving down instead of up? Sure. I just think its hilarious how some guys are crowing about this as some major Bush accomplishment that he won't get sufficient credit for. Its like me starting off with a highly profitable business, plunging it into the red and then slightly lessening our level of debt and feeling like I'm a tycoon. You guys have really lowered the bar. That's what I commenting on.

[Tigermike 3,035]

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

How can this be???? We have heard for the past 4 1/2 years how bad things are and we are all going to hell-in-a-hand basket.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

Pretty good cut even with a war going on.

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

I thought the corporations and fat cats all got a cut at the expense of the little guys?

[TexasTiger 12,949]

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

How can this be???? We have heard for the past 4 1/2 years how bad things are and we are all going to hell-in-a-hand basket.

168713[/snapback]

"How can this be?" Are you serious? Bush took the budget $650 billion in the wrong direction-- now we are hoping to only be about $550 billion down from where we were when he took office. And you guys are crowing about it and saying this proves any criticism was BS!

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

It be damn funny if you guys weren't ruining my country.

[Tigermike 3,035]

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

How can this be???? We have heard for the past 4 1/2 years how bad things are and we are all going to hell-in-a-hand basket.

168713[/snapback]

"How can this be?" Are you serious? Bush took the budget $650 billion in the wrong direction-- now we are hoping to only be about $550 billion down from where we were when he took office. And you guys are crowing about it and saying this proves any criticism was BS!

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

It be damn funny if you guys weren't ruining my country.

168716[/snapback]

Yeah I've been thinking for a long time that if Bill Clinton and you leftist libs had either captured Ossma Ben Laden or taken on the world wide terrorist 10 years ago when you had the chance, much might have very different. In fact if we were not fighting a war on terrorists now I wonder how much those economic policies might have changed things?

Before you go on another of your little rants, tell us why the dems declined to capture Ossma Ben Laden? There was a country wanting to turn him over to the US and Ole Bill couldn't think straight at the time, was Monica under the desk? Or was John Kerry dreaming of his Christmas in Cambodia. But without a doubt, Teddy Kennedy was pickled.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

How can this be???? We have heard for the past 4 1/2 years how bad things are and we are all going to hell-in-a-hand basket.

168713[/snapback]

"How can this be?" Are you serious? Bush took the budget $650 billion in the wrong direction-- now we are hoping to only be about $550 billion down from where we were when he took office. And you guys are crowing about it and saying this proves any criticism was BS!

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

It be damn funny if you guys weren't ruining my country.

168716[/snapback]

Yeah I've been thinking for a long time that if Bill Clinton and you leftist libs had either captured Ossma Ben Laden or taken on the world wide terrorist 10 years ago when you had the chance, much might have very different. In fact if we were not fighting a war on terrorists now I wonder how much those economic policies might have changed things?

Before you go on another of your little rants, tell us why the dems declined to capture Ossma Ben Laden? There was a country wanting to turn him over to the US and Ole Bill couldn't think straight at the time, was Monica under the desk? Or was John Kerry dreaming of his Christmas in Cambodia. But without a doubt, Teddy Kennedy was pickled.

168719[/snapback]

You really want to talk about three or so things. Bill's BJ, Teddy's drinking or John Kerry's cowardly display in the jungles of Viet Nam. This is probably why you don't understand the deficit. It is not one of those three things.

Okay, let's talk about Osama. On Sept. 11, 2001, he attacked America. In is first 8 months of his office, Bush never mentioned his name. Did he even know who he was? Almost 4 years later, Bin Laden is still free and our national debt has grown by about 2 trillion dollars.

[Tigermike 3,035]

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

How can this be???? We have heard for the past 4 1/2 years how bad things are and we are all going to hell-in-a-hand basket.

168713[/snapback]

"How can this be?" Are you serious? Bush took the budget $650 billion in the wrong direction-- now we are hoping to only be about $550 billion down from where we were when he took office. And you guys are crowing about it and saying this proves any criticism was BS!

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

It be damn funny if you guys weren't ruining my country.

168716[/snapback]

Yeah I've been thinking for a long time that if Bill Clinton and you leftist libs had either captured Ossma Ben Laden or taken on the world wide terrorist 10 years ago when you had the chance, much might have very different. In fact if we were not fighting a war on terrorists now I wonder how much those economic policies might have changed things?

Before you go on another of your little rants, tell us why the dems declined to capture Ossma Ben Laden? There was a country wanting to turn him over to the US and Ole Bill couldn't think straight at the time, was Monica under the desk? Or was John Kerry dreaming of his Christmas in Cambodia. But without a doubt, Teddy Kennedy was pickled.

168719[/snapback]

Okay, let's talk about Osama. On Sept. 11, 2001, he attacked America. In is first 8 months of his office, Bush never mentioned his name. Did he even know who he was? Almost 4 years later, Bin Laden is still free and our national debt has grown by about 2 trillion dollars.

168724[/snapback]

Yes I knew who he was. I knew that he was supposedly hanging out in Afghanistan. I also knew that your hero the Slick One From Arkansas had chosen NOT to capture him when the opportunity was given. Yeah I am sure W knew who he was as well.

Almost 4 years later, Bin Laden is still free and our national debt has grown by about 2 trillion dollars.

And after that 4 years absolutely no one has ever heard anything from the dems except bellyaching, whining and Bull$(*t. You guys whine great, but have never offered a plan of any type. Other than W sucks, Get out of Iraq, Stop the war on terrorism and appease the bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists, The economy is crappy, what have you guys got. Absolutely nothing, the democrats are bankrupt of any meaningful ideas of any type. That could very well be why you have lost the senate, congress and the Presidency.

Answer these questions. Did you think the war on terrorism would be over in a year? Two years? Three? Longer?

Do you think the war on terrorism will be over if Osama is captured or killed? How about Zargawie? If he is captured or killed will the war be over?

Do you think if the United States and all coalition forces were to leave that the Islamic terrorists would stop their terrorists activities and civilization?

How much do you as a card carrying, kool aid drinking, liberal democrat think the war on terrorism has added to the deficit?

[TrueBlue72 0]

A few things are certain and well documented.

First, the recession that manifested itself during W's first term had already begun on Clinton's watch. The Clinton's lax policies in regard to corporate fiscal responsibility no doubt had much to do with that decline.

Second, the failures of Clinton's international policies led to the events of 9/11. His hasty retreat from Somalia, his lobbing a few cruise missles in the direction of some terrorist camps and his failure to take Bin Laden when he was offered up on a platter are a few of the major foreign policy screw ups of the Clintonistas.

Third, short of world war, no administration has faced such a devistating event as 9/11. The economic consequences of 9/11 would have brought the economy to a stall even without the fact that a recession was already in progress.

Fourth, the liberales want us to ignore all these facts and blame the current economic situation on President Bush, along with all the other woes of the world from famine to global warming to the recent tsunami. Of course, the leaders of the liberales don't believe these things, but they want YOU and ME to believe them so they have a slight political advantage. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE POLITICS AND POWER TO THEM.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

A few things are certain and well documented. 

First, the recession that manifested itself during W's first term had already begun on Clinton's watch.  The Clinton's lax policies in regard to corporate fiscal responsibility no doubt had much to do with that decline. 

Second, the failures of Clinton's international policies led to the events of 9/11.  His hasty retreat from Somalia, his lobbing a few cruise missles in the direction of some terrorist camps and his failure to take Bin Laden when he was offered up on a platter are a few of the major foreign policy screw ups of the Clintonistas. 

Third, short of world war, no administration has faced such a devistating event as 9/11.  The economic consequences of 9/11 would have brought the economy to a stall even without the fact that a recession was already in progress. 

Fourth, the liberales want us to ignore all these facts and blame the current economic situation on President Bush, along with all the other woes of the world from famine to global warming to the recent tsunami.  Of course, the leaders of the liberales don't believe these things, but they want YOU and ME to believe them so they have a slight political advantage.  IT'S ALL ABOUT THE POLITICS AND POWER TO THEM.

168981[/snapback]

Your post is largely the same inane chatter one usually hears from the far right noise machine, but one thing is interesting: "Clintonistas" and "liberales"-- you seem to characterize your political enemies as Hispanic, don't you?

[TrueBlue72 0]

Actually, I had never thought of it that way, TT, and I certainly have no problem with hispanics as long as they are here legally and obey our laws. I believe the term "Clintonistas" is a derogatory reference tying them to the socialist Sandinistas of Nicaragua; I didn't coin the term.

But the bigger question is: Why do you, when confronted with facts, try and redirect the debate to personal issues rather than staying on topic. I have noticed that is your preferred tactic on this board. Of course, I understand why.... you know you can't win a debate on the issues, so you dismiss and deflect.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Actually, I had never thought of it that way, TT, and I certainly have no problem with hispanics as long as they are here legally and obey our laws.  I believe the term "Clintonistas" is a derogatory reference tying them to the socialist Sandinistas of Nicaragua; I didn't coin the term. 

But the bigger question is:  Why do you, when confronted with facts, try and redirect the debate to personal issues rather than staying on topic.  I have noticed that is your preferred tactic on this board.  Of course, I understand why....  you know you can't win a debate on the issues, so you dismiss and deflect.

169056[/snapback]

How about "liberales"? Coin that one yourself?

Interesting critique coming from you. This thread was about deficit spending. This President inherited not only the first balanced budget in over thirty years, but a healthy surpluse of 236 billion. He immediately takes us 650 billion in the other direction, and, no, don't think it was making us safer from terrorists. Your infrastructure is not appreciably better, although in some remote areas of Iraq the school might be better than the one closests to most Americans. That money hasn't gone to making health care more accessible for Americans, making college more in reach of more Americans or really anthing else that makes us "stronger." Check out the bottom line of his biggest contributors, though and you'll get some inkling of where it went.

Your response? Same old Clinton bashing. Same old tired years old Clinton bashing. You are soooo 90s! Debate on the issues? When have you engaged in one? Think hard, and when you come up with an original thought, or at least borrow one that isn't so badly shop worn, let me know and we'll talk.

[AURaptor 1,125]

But the bigger question is: Why do you, when confronted with facts, try and redirect the debate to personal issues rather than staying on topic. I have noticed that is your preferred tactic on this board. Of course, I understand why.... you know you can't win a debate on the issues, so you dismiss and deflect.

It's the S.O.P. of almost all Liberals. They know they don't have a winning position, so the best they can do is demagouge an issue by bringing up non relevent points as straw dogs so they can avoid dealing w/ a head on debate. To state how they REALLY feel would leave themselves open to honest examination of their positions, and that's something they simply just can't face.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

 

But the bigger question is:  Why do you, when confronted with facts, try and redirect the debate to personal issues rather than staying on topic.  I have noticed that is your preferred tactic on this board.  Of course, I understand why....  you know you can't win a debate on the issues, so you dismiss and deflect.

169056[/snapback]

The bigger question is could you be a bigger hypocrite? The same day you posted this, JapanTiger and I were engaging in an exchange chock full of facts and substantive argument-- you chimed in-- not to add to the debate, but to do the only thing you and your buddy Raptor seem able to do-- talk about liberals to try and make yourselves feel better about yourselves.

Japantiger, you are far to logical and support your position too well with facts for the liberales to manage any valid arguements against it.  Against such arguements, they typically (see above thread) distortions, deflections, name calling and outright lies.  That is the liberal way!!!! 

An even better question might be, "does the left HONESTLY do anything or is everything they say and do simply for political advantage?"  I've come to the belief that the latter is true.

169025[/snapback]

That really added to that debate. There are only a handful of self-identified conservatives on this board that will routinely engage in a meaningful discussion. Most of the others do what you did ad nauseum-- talk about libruls.

[Tigermike 3,035]

 

But the bigger question is:  Why do you, when confronted with facts, try and redirect the debate to personal issues rather than staying on topic.  I have noticed that is your preferred tactic on this board.  Of course, I understand why....  you know you can't win a debate on the issues, so you dismiss and deflect.

169056[/snapback]

The bigger question is could you be a bigger hypocrite? The same day you posted this, JapanTiger and I were engaging in an exchange chock full of facts and substantive argument-- you chimed in-- not to add to the debate, but to do the only thing you and your buddy Raptor seem able to do-- talk about liberals to try and make yourselves feel better about yourselves.

Japantiger, you are far to logical and support your position too well with facts for the liberales to manage any valid arguements against it.  Against such arguements, they typically (see above thread) distortions, deflections, name calling and outright lies.  That is the liberal way!!!! 

An even better question might be, "does the left HONESTLY do anything or is everything they say and do simply for political advantage?"  I've come to the belief that the latter is true.

169025[/snapback]

That really added to that debate. There are only a handful of self-identified conservatives on this board that will routinely engage in a meaningful discussion. Most of the others do what you did ad nauseum-- talk about libruls.

169101[/snapback]

And you never fail and are usually one of the first to start the personal mud slinging and name calling. Pot meet the kettle.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

 

But the bigger question is:  Why do you, when confronted with facts, try and redirect the debate to personal issues rather than staying on topic.  I have noticed that is your preferred tactic on this board.  Of course, I understand why....  you know you can't win a debate on the issues, so you dismiss and deflect.

169056[/snapback]

The bigger question is could you be a bigger hypocrite? The same day you posted this, JapanTiger and I were engaging in an exchange chock full of facts and substantive argument-- you chimed in-- not to add to the debate, but to do the only thing you and your buddy Raptor seem able to do-- talk about liberals to try and make yourselves feel better about yourselves.

Japantiger, you are far to logical and support your position too well with facts for the liberales to manage any valid arguements against it.  Against such arguements, they typically (see above thread) distortions, deflections, name calling and outright lies.  That is the liberal way!!!! 

An even better question might be, "does the left HONESTLY do anything or is everything they say and do simply for political advantage?"  I've come to the belief that the latter is true.

169025[/snapback]

That really added to that debate. There are only a handful of self-identified conservatives on this board that will routinely engage in a meaningful discussion. Most of the others do what you did ad nauseum-- talk about libruls.

169101[/snapback]

And you never fail and are usually one of the first to start the personal mud slinging and name calling. Pot meet the kettle.

169105[/snapback]

Is it "never" or "usually"?

It is more noticeable when done by someone on the "other side." You think its me. I think I'm generally responding to something derogatory or condescending when I respond in kind. You may not even notice the condescension that I'm responding to. What I see as condescending, you may see as "fact" because you share the belief of the poster.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Interesting critique coming from you.  This thread was about deficit spending.  This President inherited not only the first balanced budget in over thirty years, but a healthy surpluse of 236 billion.

It was an economy built on paper due to the Y2K phenomenom. Even had ole slick been here another 4 years, he could not have stopped the house of cards from falling. His whole presidency was all style and no substance. Then W has to come in and do the hard thing. Seams when you avoid a problem long enough, somebody else has to do the job for you. Ahh the demoncratic way.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Interesting critique coming from you.  This thread was about deficit spending.  This President inherited not only the first balanced budget in over thirty years, but a healthy surpluse of 236 billion.

It was an economy built on paper due to the Y2K phenomenom. Even had ole slick been here another 4 years, he could not have stopped the house of cards from falling. His whole presidency was all style and no substance. Then W has to come in and do the hard thing. Seams when you avoid a problem long enough, somebody else has to do the job for you. Ahh the demoncratic way.

169342[/snapback]

When did cutting taxes and showing no spending restraint become the "hard thing"?

Is that in the Alice in Wonderland sequel I must've missed?

[DKW 86 7,426]

BUsh also inherited a Foreign Policy quagmire where Clinton had ignored dealing with al Qaeda for years, didnt get Bin Laden when had the chance and shown us to be paper Tigers, visavis Mogadishu.

The Arab world looked on us as very beatable and laid plans going back as far 1996 for the attack on the WTC and others.

We then literally had to go to war and dficit spending was part of the deal then. We also had the onset of the Clinton-Gore Recession in December before Bush took office. How do you end a recession? Deficit Spend as per Keynesian model.

I am very upset with W and the Republicans about the budgets though. It will be my driven issue in the campaigns coming. I am fiscally conservative and I want my country to be as well.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

BUsh also inherited a Foreign Policy quagmire where Clinton had ignored dealing with al Qaeda for years, didnt get Bin Laden when had the chance and shown us to be paper Tigers, visavis Mogadishu.

The Arab world looked on us as very beatable and laid plans going back as far 1996 for the attack on the WTC and others.

We then literally had to go to war and dficit spending was part of the deal then. We also had the onset of the Clinton-Gore Recession in December before Bush took office. How do you end a recession? Deficit Spend as per Keynesian model.

I am very upset with W and the Republicans about the budgets though. It will be my driven issue in the campaigns coming. I am fiscally conservative and I want my country to be as well.

170135[/snapback]

You know if you want to claim that Clinton should have approached Al Qaeda more vigorously, go ahead, even though you will be hard pressed to find Republicans during that time that were more focused on Al Qaeda. But to say he "ignored" it is flat out wrong. Richard Clarke will critique certain decisions of Clinton in regard to Al Qaeda, but readily recognizes that he was very focused on the problem. On the other hand, all evidence supports that Bush truly did "ignore" Al Qaeda until 9/11.

I know part of the party propaganda is to refer to the recession as the Clinton-Gore Recession, but the term "recession" has a particular meaning and the conditions that define it indicate it began in March of 2001. That said, I will readily recognize that such things are cyclical and that the recession would have likely started in March regardless of who was elected. I don't blame Bush for the onset of the recession. Having said that, Clinton inherited an economy with higher unemployment, etc., but did not approach it from the standpoint of increased deficit spending, but rather deficit reduction. Yes, an opposing Congress in the late nineties was likely essential to the budgets being eventually balanced, but out of the gate, Clinton's budget deficits were lower than each preceding year.