Federal Budget Deficit Swells, amid record revenues

[Damocles]

And with the Bush tax cuts still in place. Nice to see the board leftists finally acknowledge that tax-rate cuts INCREASE revenues. Truth eventually dawns on us all. Some later than others.

Also nice to finally hear them becoming concerned about runaway debt. Too bad they didn't notice the problem when their party controlled Congress almost exclusively from 1934 thru 1995, and increased the National Debt by twenty thousand percent.

Apparently runaway spending is only bad when Republicans do it.

It is worse. It is my party and I expect them to do better, not worse.

 

[Kamala Trump]

That probably won't happen until S.S. is truly at its breaking point and then somehow the Dems and Reps will have to agree to work together and fall on the sword together to get any meaningfull change.

Nope. At that point the government healthcare system will start overprescribing euthanasia.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Disingenous and misleading.

The United States, virtually every year in the last century, has had "record" revenues, every singgle year there's a new federal budget. Because the population, the economy, and therefore revenue is always growing; whether there are tax cuts or no tax cuts.

The rate of revenue growth in the last seven years has been one of the slowest on record. The foolish bush tax cuts, didn't lead to any great spurt in the rates of revenue growth. In fact, they stagnated the rate of revenue growth.

How dare you cherry pick and just look at the last seven years. You must use the data for the past twenty years. You are not allowed to analyze anything shorter term than that. Especially a random period like seven years. What scientist or economist would dare look at such a short period?

 

[Kamala Trump]

How dare you cherry pick and just look at the last seven years. You must use the data for the past twenty years. You are not allowed to analyze anything shorter term than that. Especially a random period like seven years. What scientist or economist would dare look at such a short period?

two fucking shay.

 

[Little-Acorn]

A) For "record revenues"...ever hear of something called "population increase?"

Ah, you're right. I had forgotten that the U.S. population also increased by twenty thousand percent from 1934 thru 1995.

Or did it?

You people say the funniest things when your cherished "facts" get debunked....

(the usual profanity from leftists deleted)
...do you know about people's concern over the national debt?

I know that during the huge stretch when Democrats controlled Congress, they weren't "concerned" enough to do anything about it. They kept jacking spending through the roof, while their tax-rate increases (up to 91% on some taxpayers) held the economy back so much that actual revenues fell in relation to them. Not a hint of actual concern (unless you count empty rhetoric, which leftists do but conservatives... and accounting books... don't), until Repubicans were finally given control of Congress in 1995 and immediately cut capital gains taxes, resulting in the first almost-balanced budget in living memory. Only when liberals like Bush, Lott, and Hastert started running things, did the debt blast off again.

Anything else I can help you with? Other than a washcloth? You'll have to wipe the spittle off your own chin, I'm afraid. But you should be used to doing that.

 

[cawacko]

cawacko, the statute of limitations has run out, on blaming the attack on the twin towers for the bush stewardship of our government's budget.

That was seven years ago.

We have "record" revenues now, because just like virtually every year this century, the government set a "record" for revenue because the population and the economy grew.

Seven years later, the rate of revenue growth is still lower that it has been in pratically half a century. The bush tax cuts didn't cause revenues to "surge".

what would you have done at that time?

 

[Bonestorm]

How dare you cherry pick and just look at the last seven years. You must use the data for the past twenty years. You are not allowed to analyze anything shorter term than that. Especially a random period like seven years. What scientist or economist would dare look at such a short period?

If you actually look at the past seven years you will find that revenues in fact decreased from 2000 to 2001, 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003. Then revenues increased from 2003 to 2004 and finally in 2005 revenues met or exceeded 2000 levels.

At least that's what the CBO says.

 

[Socrtease]

It is worse. It is my party and I expect them to do better, not worse.

It is bad when either party does it. But the republicans HAD prided themselves on fiscal responsibility. Now however, the party, from the top down, has begun to eschew responibility. Not responsible for the fuck up that has become Iraq, not responsible for the catastrophe that has become the VA and not responsible for the deficit.

 

[Onceler]

"I know that during the huge stretch when Democrats controlled Congress, they weren't "concerned" enough to do anything about it."

Uh-huh. They're not the ones who said "deficit spending doesn't matter." At least Clinton & congress worked together to TRY to balance the budget, and Gore had a 5-year "reinventing gov't" program that was just starting to reap benefits in terms of cutting bureacracy & waste; it's on the web if you want to read the results.

I don't have time to teach you history.

 

[cawacko]

A) For "record revenues"...ever hear of something called "population increase?"

B) What the fuck do you know about people's concern over the national debt? I don't recall ever hearing anyone NOT being concerned about it. At least VP Gore started the "reinventing gov't" project, which was working until Bush abandoned it, and Cheney said "deficit spending doesn't matter."

You, as a rightie, don't have a leg to stand on in this debate, even though Rush tells you that you do...

Later you stated the Republicans worked on reducing the deficit and here you say they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If you actually look at the past seven years you will find that revenues in fact decreased from 2000 to 2001, 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003. Then revenues increased from 2003 to 2004 and finally in 2005 revenues met or exceeded 2000 levels.

At least that's what the CBO says.

Cypress is correct in that revenues pretty much set records every year due to population growth and the expansion of the workforce. The exceptions are the years when the equity markets drop precipitously and the economy hits a recession. The reason for the drop is obvious... more people tend to lose jobs in a recession and also more people have write offs due to equity losses.

Examples of such are 1973/74 and as you mention 2000-2002. Then once the economy got back on track, revenues began increasing again.

I don't have the data on hand, but I would guess the pace of revenue growth after the recession was similar to that of the timeframe prior to the recession. A similar phenomenon likely occured prior to and after teh 73/74 recession.

 

[Onceler]

Later you stated the Republicans worked on reducing the deficit and here you say they don't have a leg to stand on.

Give me an f'in break. Republicans USED to be deficit hawks. Are they now, cawacko? Would you characterize the modern-day GOP under Bush that way?

If not, have a big, tall glass of STFU. I'm sick of the "gotcha" game you idiots play. I made the most fiscally conservative response to the initial post yet with my 1st reply on the thread, and all fools like you & Acorn can do is play these little winking gotcha games...

 

[Cypress]

what would you have done at that time?

Pretty much what Gore proposed. Maybe with some tweaks.

Gore said Bush's math was fuzzy. And even though Gore got laughed at, he was right. Bush's numbers never added up.

I recall that Gore was going to offer a more modest, prudent tax cut, and use the surplus to pay off the debt.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That said, when you look at spending habits.... those also pretty much set records every year... only the idiots in DC can continue to justify spending more than they make every single friggin year.

1960 was the last fiscal year the morons in DC actually lowered our national debt year over year.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Pretty much what Gore proposed. Maybe with some tweaks.

Gore said Bush's math was fuzzy. And even though Gore got laughed at, he was right. Bush's numbers never added up.

I recall that Gore was going to offer a more modest, prudent tax cut, and use the surplus to pay off the debt.

Talk about fuzzy math... you really have to give up on that fantasy that there was a surplus. Those projected numbers were based off of the best years our economy had seen.... ever. Both parties continue to act like that surplus was real so that they could justify spending more.

We in turn find out in the 2000-2002 time frame just how much fraud there was pumping up the economy at the time.

We entered a recession in 2000 that blew those projected surplusses to hell. The subsequent decline in the equity markets put the nails in the coffins of that little fantasy.

Clinton came close in fiscal year 2000 to lowering the debt year over year. Missed it by about 18 billion dollars. Yet he still failed.... despite record revenues (at the time).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Later you stated the Republicans worked on reducing the deficit and here you say they don't have a leg to stand on.

They worked to reduce it during the late 1990s. Together with Clinton they did a pretty good job.

Personally, that led me to believe that they would continue and do even better with a Rep in the White House. I'll give them a pass on the recession years, but 2003-2006 were pathetic.

 

[cawacko]

Give me an f'in break. Republicans USED to be deficit hawks. Are they now, cawacko? Would you characterize the modern-day GOP under Bush that way?

If not, have a big, tall glass of STFU. I'm sick of the "gotcha" game you idiots play. I made the most fiscally conservative response to the initial post yet with my 1st reply on the thread, and all fools like you & Acorn can do is play these little winking gotcha games...

Jackass, I'm not playing gotcha games. I asked you a question based on what you said. Bush has been the worst fiscally. He is off the charts bad. And the Republicans in Congress completely loss track off why they were voted in in 1994 and were just as bad if not worst than Bush. They deservedly lost Congress in '06. This idea that they could keep a long time majority by spending all this money was the worst strategy imaginable. I am glad they lost because if they won't act fiscally responsible I don't want them in power.

My guess is Bush (pure speculation and speaking out my ass here) either told or made some deal with Congress that you fund my war and I'll pass all your spending bills.

The sad part with Bush is that it took to waning day of his administration to veto and threaten veto on some spending bills. He should have been doing that from day one. He finally started acting like a somewhat fiscally conservative Republican. Way too little way too late.

It almost speaks to the need to have divided government. Republicans in Congress fought Clinton (for the most part) every step of the way on spending and the nation as a whole benefited. When Bush and the Democrats battle now over spending the country should (hopefully) benefit as well.

 

[uscitizen]

tell me why they were foolish. During a recession and a terrorist is that a good time to raise taxes?

Sheesh, the economy goes up so does federal revenue. You been hanging out with topper or something ?

 

[cawacko]

Sheesh, the economy goes up so does federal revenue. You been hanging out with topper or something ?

so we hit a recession and a terrorist attack and you just sit on your ass?

 

[Bonestorm]

They worked to reduce it during the late 1990s. Together with Clinton they did a pretty good job.

Personally, that led me to believe that they would continue and do even better with a Rep in the White House. I'll give them a pass on the recession years, but 2003-2006 were pathetic.

Freak - How can you give them a pass on 2001-2002? Tax cuts are akin to spending increases from a revenue perspective. How can you justify, from a deficit/revenue perspective, tax cuts during a period of economic decline (which would already involve decreasing revenues)?