Budget Deficit Would Turn To Surplus In 2 Years Without Dubya's Tax Cuts

[Nbadan]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d68/lefty48197/BudgetdeficitgraphandBushtaxcutresu.jpg


The Congressional Budget Office has projected that if Bush's tax cuts for his rich friends expire in 2010 as per current law, then the federal budget will return to surplus only two years later, in 2012.

"...if those tax cuts are allowed to expire after 2010... ...the budget would begin showing a surplus in 2012, the CBO's budget projections showed.

"Bush wants Congress to make the tax cuts permanent before he leaves office in 2009."

"In its annual budget and economic report, the agency estimated that this year's deficit will be $337 billion, up $19 billion from 2005. It said the deficit will be about $360 billion if extra anticipated costs for Iraq, Afghanistan and the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast are added."

"The long-term budget forecast is gloomier, particularly if Bush and Congress agree to extend the tax cuts. In 2016, the deficit would be nearly $400 billion..."

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060127/a_deficit27.art.htm)

New forecasts issued by the Congressional Budget Office confirm that if the tax cuts and Alternative Minimum Tax relief are extended, the nation faces large and growing deficits over the next ten years, with total deficits of between $3.5 and $4 trillion over that period.

[Peter]

The deficit could also turn into a surplus without spending increases.

[Nbadan]

Sorry for the double post, short-term internet problem - must be the NSA listening again.

[Yonivore]

Since the tax cuts resulted in increased tax receipts (see Laffer and the actual numbers for confirmation), I find that hard to accept. The better resolution is to cut spending as Peter suggested.

[2centsworth]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg



Everyone should check out the following thread where Dan never said anything close to what he's trying to say in this thread. http://taxprof.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

Dan, who are you trying to convince with your Hitler mind tricks. Lucky for you liberals for the most part are stupid and will believe your lies.

[Nbadan]

“A substantial reduction in the growth of spending, and perhaps a sizable increase in taxes as a share of the economy, will be necessary for fiscal stability to be at all likely in the coming decades.”

Doesn't anybody take the time to read the links anymore?

[Nbadan]

Everyone should check out the following thread where Dan never said anything close to what he's trying to say in this thread. http://taxprof.typepad.com/./photos...nue20growth.jpg

:lol

I never said that!!!

[Nbadan]

Since the tax cuts resulted in increased tax receipts (see Laffer and the actual numbers for confirmation), I find that hard to accept. The better resolution is to cut spending as Peter suggested.

Hey Grover Norquist, I'm gonna post this one more time and maybe this time you might get it...

A tax cut without equal concurrent cuts in deficit spending is really just a tax deferment. (doesn't matter how much the economy grows) Got it? Economics 101 lesson over.

[RandomGuy]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg



Everyone should check out the following thread where Dan never said anything close to what he's trying to say in this thread. http://taxprof.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

Dan, who are you trying to convince with your Hitler mind tricks. Lucky for you liberals for the most part are stupid and will believe your lies.


FIRST.

The graph is meaningless, because it ignores the time value of money.

SECOND.

Revenues spiked because a lot of tax credits used to stimulate business investment expired in 2003.

I really hate it when Bush apologists lie through their teeth like this. Please stop it.

[Peter]

FIRST.

The graph is meaningless, because it ignores the time value of money.



Depends on your cost of funds.

[RandomGuy]

Depends on your cost of funds.

Half right.

The "cost of funds" for most government entities is simply inflation. If you look at most graphs put out by credible parties they always try to adjust for inflation.

Without taking into account that simple fact, absolute numbers don't mean much.

[Peter]

Right is right. Taking back the '05 # (assuming it was $2,150 billion) at 5% gives one $1,950 billion in '03, for example. Inflation was a little lower than that.

[RandomGuy]

Right is right. Taking back the '05 # (assuming it was $2,150 billion) at 5% gives one $1,950 billion in '03, for example. Inflation was a little lower than that.

"Federal receipts are the highest in US history" without adjusting for inflation, is like saying "US population is the highest in US history". Kind of hard to credit the executive branch with natural growth isn't it?

I noticed you glossed over the second point, heh.

I stand by my assertion that the graph is not only meaningless, but so far into "spin" that it crosses the border into an outright lie. This is something I have come to expect from a modern right more concerned with winning than ethics.

[Peter]

Well, first off one has to assume that the numbers in the graph are not already inflation adjusted. I did, for the sake of argument. But that is not definitive.

[scott]

Or we could just quit spending money like a redneck lotto winner. Just a thought.

I think all graphs presented in this thread are meaningless quite simply for the fact there is no statistically valid way of backcasting what would have happened to federal tax reciepts without the tax cut. Did fed tax revenue increase because of the tax cut, or because we came out of a natural recession in the business cycle? The answer, of course, is both... but to what degree? The number of variables that impact the result is so great that there is no way to get a measurement without it being anything more than spin.

[2centsworth]

Or we could just quit spending money like a redneck lotto winner. Just a thought.

I think all graphs presented in this thread are meaningless quite simply for the fact there is no statistically valid way of backcasting what would have happened to federal tax reciepts without the tax cut. Did fed tax revenue increase because of the tax cut, or because we came out of a natural recession in the business cycle? The answer, of course, is both... but to what degree? The number of variables that impact the result is so great that there is no way to get a measurement without it being anything more than spin.

Bush Lied.:lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

Doesnt the US owe China like $1 trillion for government bonds/notes china bought?

[Peter]

Doesnt the US owe China like $1 trillion for government bonds/notes china bought?


It's probably up to that level or will be soon. Another way to look at it is that China has helped the US finance its spending at less than 5% per annum.

Not the greatest of situations, but the lemonade isn't that bad.

[Darrin]

It's probably up to that level or will be soon. Another way to look at it is that China has helped the US finance its spending at less than 5% per annum.

Not the greatest of situations, but the lemonade isn't that bad.

Until we stand politically opposed to China and they call those assets due or use that threat as leverage to broker a solution.

[Peter]

So the Chinese are going to devalue their assets and lose a monster export market?

[Darrin]

So the Chinese are going to devalue their assets and lose a monster export market?

If it means winning the standoff over Taiwan and becoming the world's superpower. Who's to say there will be a "massive" market for their goods if consumers in the United States can no longer afford their products because of a lack of jobs?

[Peter]

If it means winning the standoff over Taiwan and becoming the world's superpower.

It has a better chance of becoming an economic and military superpower by not rocking the boat.




Who's to say there will be a "massive" market for their goods if consumers in the United States can no longer afford their products because of a lack of jobs?

What if a giant meteor hits the US, wipes out half the country and we can no longer afford their products?

[Yonivore]

What if a giant meteor hits the US, wipes out half the country and we can no longer afford their products?
I think economics will be pretty low on the priority list right about then.

[SpursWoman]

:lol



Well, without respect to what happens a few years down the road....I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Bush for his illegal, economically unstimulating and unwarranted tax cuts for the GIGANTIC tax refund I just got.

:tu


Which will be pumped, post haste, right back into the economy. :fro

[Yonivore]

:lol



Well, without respect to what happens a few years down the road....I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Bush for his illegal, economically unstimulating and unwarranted tax cuts for the GIGANTIC tax refund I just got.

:tu
Amen to that!



Which will be pumped, post haste, right back into the economy. :fro
:::snicker::: she said "pumping" :::snicker:::

[Nbadan]

It has a better chance of becoming an economic and military superpower by not rocking the boat.

For now that's probably true, but once China feels they have the market internally to drive their own economy without financing for us to do it, just watch how fast they start dropping some of their $1+ trillion in U.S. notes and securities. Starving the beast in the highest order.

[Nbadan]

:lol

Well, without respect to what happens a few years down the road....I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Bush for his illegal, economically unstimulating and unwarranted tax cuts for the GIGANTIC tax refund I just got.

:tu

Which will be pumped, post haste, right back into the economy. :fro

Shopping on your kid's credit card huh? I hope they appreciate that when they are paying the bill.

[SpursWoman]

Shopping on your kid's credit card huh? I hope they appreciate that when they are paying the bill.



Well, considering all of that money is going to fix my house that's on the verge of falling down...they will certainly appreciate having a dry, warm place to sleep.

:fro

















Eh, who am I kidding. Kids don't appreciate a damn thing. :spin

[Peter]

For now that's probably true, but once China feels they have the market internally to drive their own economy without financing for us to do it, just watch how fast they start dropping some of their $1+ trillion in U.S. notes and securities. Starving the beast in the highest order.


They'll starve the dragon if they do that.