Soaring Economy Cutting Budget Deficits

[DKW 86 7,440]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washingt...agewanted=print

It must really be going well for the NYT to admit it.

July 9, 2006

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.

Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.

[quietfan 233]

What? You're still reading things from that "lying, traitorous" paper?

But I'll agree that this is good news.

[AURaptor 1,126]

More good economic news? I actually heard on a Lib radio talk show this a.m. that W is 'making up' these foiled terrorist plots, just so he can point to something positive for his legacy. Those pin heads ares still stuck in 2001, and clearly haven't been paying attention to the 4.6 % unemployment, the recovery of the stock market, etc....The left sound like little brat children who refuse to acknowledge the facts.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

More good economic news? I actually heard on a Lib radio talk show this a.m. that W is 'making up' these foiled terrorist plots, just so he can point to something positive for his legacy. Those pin heads ares still stuck in 2001, and clearly haven't been paying attention to the 4.6 % unemployment,  the recovery of the stock market, etc....The left sound like little brat children who refuse to acknowledge the facts.

246184[/snapback]

Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.

Good news is relative. We're shrinking the deficit from an all-time high!!!! Yipeee!

These are the "facts."

[AURaptor 1,126]

All time high as a $$ amount, but not as a % of our GDP.

Facts is facts.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

All time high as a $$ amount, but not as a % of our GDP.

Facts is facts.

246196[/snapback]

Down to the 300 billion, maybe if we're lucky, which puts us just 10 billion more than the previous record, before Dubya's several records, of 290 billion by Daddy. My, that family is impressive!

[AURaptor 1,126]

All time high as a $$ amount, but not as a % of our GDP.

Facts is facts.

246196[/snapback]

Down to the 300 billion, maybe if we're lucky, which puts us just 10 billion more than the previous record, before Dubya's several records, of 290 billion by Daddy. My, that family is impressive!

246202[/snapback]

Like a parrot, you keep spouting the same thing, over and over. It's not the $$ amount that's important, but the *ratio of the defecit to gdp. Under W's administraiton, the defecit is under 4%, which by no means a record.

Not a record. Get over it.

* Sorry, I forgot the typo nazis inhabbited this board.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

All time high as a $$ amount, but not as a % of our GDP.

Facts is facts.

246196[/snapback]

Down to the 300 billion, maybe if we're lucky, which puts us just 10 billion more than the previous record, before Dubya's several records, of 290 billion by Daddy. My, that family is impressive!

246202[/snapback]

Like a parrot, you keep spouting the same thing, over and over. It's not the $$ amount that's important, but the radio of the defecit to gdp. Under W's administraiton, the defecit is under 4%, which by no means a record.

Not a record. Get over it.

246208[/snapback]

It's the radio? Okay. This is the budget game played by Republicans to try and minimize the fact that they spend like drunken sailors.

Look, if a Republican doesn't post this like its some major vindication of the most incompetent administration ever, I wouldn't have said a word about it. This is like having your kid come home all proud of the D-- he got in math. I guess it coulda been worse.

[DKW 86 7,440]

It's the ra(t)io? Okay. This is the budget game played by Republicans to try and minimize the fact that they spend like drunken sailors.

Look, if a Republican doesn't post this like its some major vindication of the most incompetent administration ever, I wouldn't have said a word about it. This is like having your kid come home all proud of the D-- he got in math. I guess it coulda been worse.

Where in the hell do you get these totally WRONG takes of yours? I never said anything like that at all. I simply pointed out, CORRECTLY that the economy is soaring and that Tax cuts do bring up revenues. Bush et al are spending worse than sailors in a whore house. They are spending like Dems still run the HOR. I never called them competent but I am pointing out that the underlying economic theory is still valid. That fact that they are outspending the increases just mirrors what the Dems did in the 1980s.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

It's the ra(t)io? Okay. This is the budget game played by Republicans to try and minimize the fact that they spend like drunken sailors.

Look, if a Republican doesn't post this like its some major vindication of the most incompetent administration ever, I wouldn't have said a word about it. This is like having your kid come home all proud of the D-- he got in math. I guess it coulda been worse.

Where in the hell do you get these totally WRONG takes of yours? I never said anything like that at all. I simply pinted out, CORRECTLY that the economy is asoariung and that Tax cuts do bring up revenues. Bush et al are spending worse than sailors in a whore house. They are spending like Dems still run the HOR. I never called them competent but I am pointing out that the underlying economic theory is still valid. That fact that they are outspending the increases just mirrors what the Dems did in the 1980s.

246229[/snapback]

If tax cuts bring up revenues, then how do you explain the rise in revenues under Clinton after the "biggest tax increase in history?"

[DKW 86 7,440]

We had actual great business going on and as we now know a bunch of blowing up our skirt with bogus business numbers while the Clinton Administration was busy running around with their peckers out, chasing chubby little interns.

We also had a Rep Congress with balls enough to NOT spend like a Dem Congress.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

We had actual great business going on and as we now know a bunch of blowing up our skirt with bogus business numbers while the Clinton Administration was busy running around with their peckers out, chasing chubby little interns.

We also had a Rep Congress with balls enough to NOT spend like a Dem Congress.

246231[/snapback]

So you're saying that if the economy is really strong, you can raise taxes on the richest folks benefitting the most and actually bring in enough revenue to balance the budget, unlike now.

[DKW 86 7,440]

We had actual great business going on and as we now know a bunch of blowing up our skirt with bogus business numbers while the Clinton Administration was busy running around with their peckers out, chasing chubby little interns.

We also had a Rep Congress with balls enough to NOT spend like a Dem Congress.

246231[/snapback]

So you're saying that if the economy is really strong, you can raise taxes on the richest folks benefitting the most and actually bring in enough revenue to balance the budget, unlike now.

246232[/snapback]

NNNOOO, Never said that. We had one tax increase in 1992. Even Clintax admitted it was too high. We kept the tax rates even from then on. so for 8 years we had a good stable economy and stable taxes due to Rep in Congress. We then had the Recession of 2000. That caused revenues to tumble. We then had 9-11 and more bad economic news. The taxes were cut a'la JFK to stimulate the Economy. They were cut evenly across the board. Those who pay higher rates simply got more back, but at the same rates we all did.

[AURaptor 1,126]

This is the budget game played by Republicans to try and minimize the fact that they spend like drunken sailors.

Look, if a Republican doesn't post this like its some major vindication of the most incompetent administration ever, I wouldn't have said a word about it. This is like having your kid come home all proud of the D-- he got in math. I guess it coulda been worse.

Umm, nope. Not a game. It's a fact. A fact which you don't like to hear, so you instead try to pass it off as some sort of 'game'. I won't deny that Bush has overspent like the afore mentioned drunken sailor, but even so, the economy IS doing well. Can't play favorites here, TT. If you want to bring up one, you have to bring up the other.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

This is the budget game played by Republicans to try and minimize the fact that they spend like drunken sailors.

Look, if a Republican doesn't post this like its some major vindication of the most incompetent administration ever, I wouldn't have said a word about it. This is like having your kid come home all proud of the D-- he got in math. I guess it coulda been worse.

Umm, nope. Not a game. It's a fact. A fact which you don't like to hear, so you instead try to pass it off as some sort of 'game'. I won't deny that Bush has overspent like the afore mentioned drunken sailor, but even so, the economy IS doing well. Can't play favorites here, TT. If you want to bring up one, you have to bring up the other.

246242[/snapback]

I'm talking about the deficit. You're tallking about the economy. If with the economy as strong as you say it is, if the best we can hope for is a 300 billion dollar deficit, then we obviously won't be growing our selves out of this deficit with the current level of tax revenues.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm talking about the deficit. You're tallking about the economy. If with the economy as strong as you say it is, if the best we can hope for is a 300 billion dollar deficit, then we obviously won't be growing our selves out of this deficit with the current level of tax revenues.

You're still not getting it. With the SIZE of our GDP, the defecit is SMALLER than it was under Clinton. That's what ratio MEANS! It's not the $$ amount, but the % of the defecit compared to the GDP.

Neal Boortz puts it best....

Look at it this way. Let's suppose you make out your family budget for the entire year. You are dismayed to see that you are going to come up about $2,000 short. If your family income is $20,000, this is a sizable budget deficit. It's 10% of your annual income. But what if your annual income is $200,000? Then your budget is only 1% of the size of your own personal "economy."

It would be a tough job eliminating that deficit if you were only making $20,000 a year. You would have to increase your economic output by 10%? But, if you were making $200,000 a year you would only have to increase your economic output by 1% to wipe out your budget.

The proposed current budget deficits stand at just a bit less than 3% of the nation's gross domestic product – the size of our economy. These budget deficits are significantly lower than the deficits predicted by Bill Clinton's White House in 1994 --- just before the Republicans took control of the congress and started turning back Clinton's spending requests.

Just thought you would like to know.

And I'm not saying 300 billion is the best we can hope for, far from it! But just be honest about this whole record defecit nonsense. It isn't, not by a long shot! Also, it never was the point to ' outgrow' our defecit w/ increased tax revenues. I'll agree that Bush has spent too much, and there needs to be real CUTS in spending, not just reductions in the size of increases. But the point of this thread is that tax cuts WORKED, and the 'crisis' that some have tried to portray the defecit isn't any crisis at all.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

What we do need to be concerned about is not the deficit, but the very rapid growth in real, nondefense, discretionary federal government spending, which is up an average of 7.2 percent yearly for the last three years. A continuation of this trend could indeed cause real economic damage.

As part of the 1983 law signed by President Reagan, the Government was required to report the General Fund deficit, not the Unified Budget Deficit, starting in 1993. Originally the General Fund excluded the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, and the operation of the Post Office. Medicare was subsequently moved back on-budget (another issue for another day). The amounts for the Post Office are negligible.

So the best metric available today to measure the President’s progress in reducing the budget deficit is the General Fund deficit. Not only is the General Fund the proper measurement tool to evaluate the performance of the President on deficit reduction, reporting the General Fund deficit is also the law!

Unfortunately Mr. Bush has made no progress, and the General Fund deficit will be close to $600 Billion again in fiscal 2006.

As pgl noted, some administration apologists are trying to mislead the American public by using the Unified Budget deficit. I suppose, when these people try to lose weight, they bundle up the first day and weigh themselves – and then weigh themselves naked the following day – and declare victory.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Difference being the debt vs the defecit.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Difference being the debt vs the defecit.

246452[/snapback]

You need to actually read the text, not just the graph.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Difference being the debt vs the defecit.

246452[/snapback]

You need to actually read the text, not just the graph.

246453[/snapback]

I did.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Difference being the debt vs the defecit.

246452[/snapback]

You need to actually read the text, not just the graph.

246453[/snapback]

I did.

246456[/snapback]

Well, try it again.

[AURaptor 1,126]

There's no need.

Did you in fact forget the title of this thread ? " Soaring Economy Cutting Budget Defecits " ????

Seems like ya did.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

There's no need.

Did you in fact forget the title of this thread ? " Soaring Economy Cutting Budget Defecits " ????

Seems like ya did.

246480[/snapback]

Seems like you still haven't read the text of the post. Big surprise. Strong opinions, limited info. Defiantly ignorant and proud! You go Raptor!

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Total Fed Credit was

actually down by $1.1 billion last week. I look at the chart. I note that

in 2000, Total Fed Credit, astonishingly, also stopping growing,

admittedly for a little longer time than this. But it caused the stock

market to crash, and the S&P500 lost about half its value over the next

couple of years. There have been a couple of other short times since 2000

when Total Fed Credit stopped growing, and the stock market was not

pleased, but it did not actually crash. Mostly because, I assume, all the

other central banks and "investors" were taking up the slack

But things are a lot different now. There is a growing consensus that

global liquidity may be drying up, just like it seems to be doing in our

own Federal Reserve.

… if Total Fed Credit is going up and keeps going up, then stocks

and the economy will go up. If Total Fed Credit is not going up and keeps

not going up, then stocks will not go up. They will, instead, go down,

just like everything else when money is withdrawn from any overheated,

highly inflated, grossly overvalued, monstrously over-indebted market.

...Fed only bought up a miniscule $52 million in government debt last week.

And then, combine that with the ugly fact that foreign central banks only

put a stinking, piddly $830 million into buying more U.S. government and

agency debt.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Seems like you still haven't read the text of the post. Big surprise. Strong opinions, limited info. Defiantly ignorant and proud! You go Raptor!

Seems that's all you've got...ad hominems and a desire to jack up your post count.

Atta boy, TT.