Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 08/13/2007 11:06:54 AM PDT by traviskicks
The Treasury Department reported Friday that federal revenues reached $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007. In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected. And yet it’s not enough to satisfy the voracious appetites of the spenders in Congress and the administration. Spending was $2.27 trillion for the same ten months.
It seems that the deficit problem in Washington is not a result of insufficient tax revenue but rather the inexorable growth of spending on everything from earmarks to entitlements to war.
To be sure, the U.S. economy is the largest national economy in history, and that’s the main reason for record tax levels. And tax revenues are not at their peak in terms of percentage of GDP–though they’re getting close. Earlier in the year OMB estimated that revenues as a percentage of GDP would reach 18.5 percent in 2007. But as of a month ago that figure had reached 18.8 percent, approaching the levels that typically produce popular demand for relief. But as spending interests become stronger and more widespread in Washington, popular demand for lower taxes faces more resistance. It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
A 10% across the board cut in spending would have the government back in the black. A 5% cut in spending would have the government close to a balanced budget.
Once again, Bush proves that lower tax rates result in higher tax revenues,
AND
that the left isn’t really as interested in tax revenues as they are in CONTROLLING YOUR LIFE.
Because taxes were reduced tax revenues went up. I would think that collecting THAT kind of revenue is far preferable to collecting income tax revenues.
The figures may be correct but the thinking is wrong. There appears to be no spending blame for Congress?
But......President Hillary claims that schools need more resources, and we have to spend more on education and also on her socialized medicine plans.
Stay tuned and see what budget priorities the next president has. There will never be enough money going to Washington for some people.
Stupid title. Debt does not equal taxes. Debt can be defaulted. Debt can be devalued. Debt can be paid with land.
Debt does not have to be paid by inevitably raising taxes.
GWB cut tax rates. Calling him the biggest taxer will put the wrong idea into the heads of the gullible, which is irresponsible...yet typical of 3rd Party nonsense.
One of the most deceptive headlines I’ve seen.
“The figures may be correct but the thinking is wrong. There appears to be no spending blame for Congress?”
“....And yet it’s not enough to satisfy the voracious appetites of the spenders in Congress and the administration.”
I think the article clearly put some blame on congress and some on the President. Both deserve blame but I’d say Bush deserves more. He was elected with a mandate from the people to shrink government and he did the opposite.
< /s >
who are the y kidding? Bill Clinton is the one. He passed the telephone tax by Presidential decree instead of going to Congress.
(chuckle)
Thats what they get for worshipping Green Hornets wingman.
“The GOP doesn’t even pay lip service to limited gov’t anymore. Haven’t in over two decades.”
President Bush did when he ran in 2000. He just lied to the American people to get elected. Or maybe since the election was so close, he decided he’d have to change his views to get reelected or to get any of his agenda passed. Either way, he’s not the idealist small government guy he ran as.
Very true. If they wanted more revenues, lower the taxes more. It’s not the money, it’s the “control” aspect as you mentioned. Go to a flat tax of 7% and they couldn’t spend all that money.....well....they could I guess. The only problem I see with the flat tax is that Congress would want at least 15% to take more of your money.
Yeah, and I'm older now than I've ever been in my entire life.
Two statements that are equally true, and equally stupid.
“Calling him the biggest taxer will put the wrong idea into the heads of the gullible,”
That’s a good point. He’s not the biggest taxer, he’s the biggest spender. The headline is misleading.
David Boaz: the biggest ass-taxer in Libertarian wonk history.
By the way..........Congress spends the money. Without them, the President could spend anything. He just never vetoed any of the Bills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.