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.
Conservatives believe that if you lower taxes to a certain point, you actually get MORE in tax revenues because people have more money to spend, they buy more stuff, buisness makes more money, they hire more people to make more stuff, and so on...
But since liberals don't believe that...explain how Bush's tax cuts for the rich have collected MORE taxes FROM the rich?
Posts
13 comments:
Dude, once again you defeat yourself with the same document you try and make a point with. Still, I gotta say there was some good material in here.
"overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000"
Meaning baseline economy hasnt changed.
"the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses"
Meaning, we are actually lower than this one score shows.
"revenues are way below what the administration said they would be a few years ago"
They overestimated the efficacy of their tax cuts.
"Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth."
"tax revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the wake of swings in the stock market"
Dont expect it to last. Its shaky economics.
"spending under Mr. Bush continued to climb rapidly this year, more than twice as fast as the economy"
Another extraneous indicator that all is not well, and actually worse than that one number indicates.
"federal debt has ballooned to $8.3 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion"
"Both supporters and critics of Mr. Bush cautioned against attributing much long-term significance to the recent fiscal improvement"
I am focusing on NOW...how come things are better NOW...why do we have more revenue?
yes, the govt spends WAY to much money...the waste is on liberal programs...our top priority and number one thing we SHOULD spend money on is the military
Give the politicians credit from taking from social security.
Strangle the beast!
If the government takes money from Social Security, Jason, they are theives and they are stealing money from me and they are stealing money from you. It's not "strangling the beast". It is stealing our money. You and I and Game and rhyno have all paid money into the Social Security Trust Fund, and if the government doesn't pay it back, they've stolen it from each and every one of us.
Do you understand that, Jason?
Nice post rhyno. It pays to actually read the sources one cites, don't you think?
the NYT is going to add some negative stuff in there, I understand...why can't we focus on this ONE question I asked???
I understand it is hard for liberals to focus on the issue
jim--
Social security is an Orwellian joke. A pay-as-you-go system is social insurance. Payroll taxes are contributions. Government IOU's are trust funds.
Note that it is settled law that you don't have a legal right to your social security benefits. In 1937, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled social security is not an insurance program -- a government insurance program would be unconstitutional btw. Secondly, in Flemming v. Nestor in 1960 the Court affirmed social security is an umbrella term for an unrelated tax scheme and welfare scheme -- again, there is no legal claim on one's social security payments.
he is right...that is why we should have listened when Bush wanted to offer private accounts...atleast you would be putting your money away for YOU...I don't expect anything from SS, except to get lots of money taken out of every check..
Jason, here is Helvering v. Davis. Can you show me the part where the court ruled that Social Security is not an insurance program? And what that has to do with Social Security. And how a government insurance program would be unconstitutional? Which Article of the Constitution is that in?
The Social Security Administration confirms your assertion on Flemming vs. Nestor. But it says, "This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense."
So I guess there can be a distinction between legal theives and moral theives.
Game, I will comment at your blog again when you make a post that doesn't use the word "liberals" or refer to them either one.
Until then, you're on your own with jim and rhyno making an ass out of you.
I miss EH. He always made an ass out of himself.
ya, what the hell happened to him?
Is he too good for us now?
I still go there and comment from time to time...
And since my blog is about the crappy PC world, liberal MSM and liberal lies...I guess I will using the word liberal alot...but not in EVERY story...there are plenty that don't....you just have to read
The NYT adds some "negative" stuff because its relevant. Fiscal conservatives call this "putting the numbers in context". This story is good news, bad news--because the big picture is good news, bad news. That's simply good journalism.
Do individuals use money more productively than the government--yes, absolutely. A buck in the private sector is used more efficiently so it becomes a buck and ten cents--that's what Bush is talking about when he's talking about increased revenues.
The private sector has added 10 cents that wouldn't be there if the money was kept in the bureacracy. Those cents do add up when you're talking billions of dollars.
On the flipside, when you're running deficit spending like we are you're essentially loaning money out to individuals--who in this case--are already doing very well. Eventually, those loans will come due--and, at our current spending rate--the increased tax cut revenues will never be sufficient to cover the difference. Even the Bush administration has admitted as much (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf).
The sad reality is that our national debt has grown from $5.6 trillion to over $9 trillion in a period of less than 6 years. If the U.S. economy had almost doubled over those 6 years, then those increases wouldn't be a big deal. The sadder reality is that economic growth--while solid--is no where near our unsustainable pace of spending.
It's also worth noting that the Bush administrations projections from 4 years ago showed a $300 billion dollar surplus, which is to say the projections from 4 years ago were off by $600 billion dollars. Most businesses actually like to see projections that closely correlate with reality.
It's always nice to see a windfall, but in this case, it's clear that the administration manipulated its projections to manufacture a good news story. The independent congressional OMB's December numbers are much closer to these revised numbers. The OMB's numbers still show solid gains in the neighborhood of about $60+ billion, but not the $120+ billion difference that we're seeing from the White House's projections during an election year. To all but the most naive observer, this should tell you something.
BTW, I actually agree with Bush that something needs to be done quickly with social security (possibly including some amount of privatization). Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about this administration's ability to address the crisis in an even-handed, fiscally conservative way. Its Medicare prescription drug plan ended up being a huge hand out to special interests--it didn't take the broadest American interest into account (i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number--the best American president's have used this metric in making their decisions--this president and this congress do not).
Post a Comment