Exactly what I was thinking. VIVA LA Reagan Revolution!! I think that means Republican girls rock!!
Posted on 07/08/2006 10:20:32 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the 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 rise 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 that 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.
Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves their argument that tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Actually, Clinton spent close to what President Bush has spent on Defense per GDP. They both are close to 3.5 overall I think.
Carter was spending close to double that. I'm surprised it's been so low while we are fighting WWIII. We all know that War spurs other advances in technology, Health, and other areas.
It wasn't unexpected and it wasn't a surprise.
Nhoward
My apologies, I was incorrect on Carter. He was closer to 4.5. Not the amount I said before.
As far as I know, cutting taxes results in increased government revenue after a few years at the outside. Every time.
If liberals really want to raise money to spend, they should cut taxes.
But they'd apparently prefer to slam the brakes on the economy, take money away from families, and hurt everyone, all under the guise of doing something compassionate.
It's madness.
Of course Bubba's platform was "It's all about the economy, stupid" and he raised our taxes. Poor Hillary. Things just aren't working out.
But the budget would be balanced this year if the Congress had not spent so much money.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
... notice how the debt has increased over $450B since the end of Sept. 05.. just over 9 months...
The war spending is old-fashioned Keynesnian government spending, much of it is "off budget". Not the model of a true free enterprise state I'd like to see.
"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy" unexpected only by people moronic enough to get their information from the NY Times.
NY Times readers also deal with the paradox of lower crime rates and higher incarceration rates.
If I remember correctly, he spent most of the time playing "hide the cigar" with a fat intern.
Apart from firing cruse missiles into empty huts in Afghanistan that is.
And the Sudanese aspirin factory, and the Chinese embassy...
Throughout history, counrries have run deficits when fighting big foreign wars. Much rather have deficits then get planes driven into my office one morning.
I'd rather that the government cut spending to fund the war, rather than raise unnecessary domestic spending to unprecedented levels during a war. It's not that it can't be done, it's just that they don't have the stones to do it. There are more than enough spending cuts that could be done to fund the war. We had enough of a surplus before the war to fund it, had they not increased spending like they did. We don't need a deficit to fund the WOT.
There was a $236B surplus before the war: Last year there was a $318B deficit. The war doesn't cost $554B annually. There is absolutely NO justification for a Republican President, and the Republicans holding majorities in both houses of Congress, to be spending at levels higher than the dems who preceeded them.
I think that it would be more likely that we would be under Sharia law, actually.
Ahhh...no, not quite Wyatt.
I think your missing the point, what you cite are budgeted costs as causes. The GAO takes Medicare and all those other goodies you mention into consideration. There may be slippage, there always is, but appropriations are made for those expenditures.
But when you are talking about increases in borrowing in excess of planned receipts, and unappropriated expenses, which triggers increases in Nat Debt...then one must look to "unbudgeted, unappropriated, expenditures" and how "governmental" accounting funds them, and thus Congress must borrow.
Nat. Gov. spending over the last three years has indeed increased in regard expense that lacked appropriation, which incidentally was for the WOT in 03 (not appropriated in '02 budget), and only partially appropriated in 03' for 04, due to how the budgetary process works for the Nat. Gov (the lag effect)...Expenses for the WOT have averaged about 350-400 billion a (YEAR)...what's 3X that Wyatt? (A drop in the bucket huh?) Well..it's money well spent.
Well, I agree, a trillion dollars over three years in regards to the size of our Economy (and Nat. Gov. Budget) is a drop in the Bucket.
As a side note, and in regard to what you cite as a cause, Congress has often robbed the Social Securtiy fund for appropriations...since as of now, it is fully funded....but projections have this going south in a couple of decades, thus congress will (unless benefits are cut or something else is changed)...will have to borrow for this with public debt at some point in the future.
Thanks, chief.
Check the OMB stats...pretty interesting.
Yep. And they started out with a $236B surplus. Is it your position that $114B-$164B absolutely could not be cut from the budget to fund the WOT? With Republicans in control of the Congress and White House? No way?
The budget went from +$236B to -$318B, for a difference of $554B in total increased spending. Basically, when Bush, et al, took office, they increased spending to swallow up the surplus. That was irresponsible.
They had an opportunity to reduce the national debt, and instead they increased spending on socialist programs, and increased gov't bureaucracy. When the WOT began, they did not decrease spending to make up the difference and get back to at least a balanced budget. This is not a fiscally conservative administration.
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.