Bush Touts Lower Budget Deficit Figures

[MegalosSkylaki]

The issue should not be Revenues as a measure of economic success, but Gross National Product or some other macroeconomic measure of economic growth. The NYT editorial (which DOOG has not read) is plausable in its explanation (as cited earlier) of "revenue growth" --but like Bush's touting, is irrelevant.

Corperations issue "negative guidance going forward" all the time --unless there is to be an IPO --only to surpass its own "estimates" and "earn" bonus for the upper crust.

I am still amazed how people divide on topics like this as Reps. or Dems. Do you think either Party wants to take its hands out of the til?

MegalosSkylaki

[mad1]

National Debt as a percentage of the GDP




link

[MTAtech]

While comparing National Debt as a percentage of the GDP may give a balance sheet picture as a nation as a whole, it understates the debt. GDP is the sum of the value that we all create. The government does not own the wealth created by GDP unless tax rates are 100%. Conversely, the national debt is an obligation of only the U.S. Government. Since tax money will be used to pay off the national debt, it's more appropriate to compare the national debt to national revenues (taxes, fees and tariffs.) The U.S. government receives about $2.2 trillion dollars in tax money and the debt is $5.7 trillion, or about 250% of revenue. Annual interest on the debt alone (in 2005) was $352 billion. For the nine months in fiscal 2006 (Oct-Jun) interest was 337.5 billion.

However, for those that like comparisons to GDP, look what has happened to federal revenues from 1945-2004 (source: Historical tables) Federal revenues dropped 15.7 for fiscal year 2004 (see attached graph) - the lowest level since the 1950s and greater than the deficit. Thus, if the Bush tax plan had not been enacted, there wouldn't be a deficit. Although these facts decisively put a stake in the heart of the theory that lowering taxes brings in more revenue, I am certain the faithful will continue to repeat the fallacy as fact.

[mad1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

While comparing National Debt as a percentage of the GDP may give a balance sheet picture as a nation as a whole, it understates the debt. GDP is the sum of the value that we all create. The government does not own the wealth created by GDP unless tax rates are 100%. Conversely, the national debt is an obligation of only the U.S. Government. Since tax money will be used to pay off the national debt, it's more appropriate to compare the national debt to national revenues (taxes, fees and tariffs.) The U.S. government receives about $2.2 trillion dollars in tax money and the debt is $5.7 trillion, or about 250% of revenue. Annual interest on the debt alone (in 2005) was $352 billion. For the nine months in fiscal 2006 (Oct-Jun) interest was 337.5 billion.

However, for those that like comparisons to GDP, look what has happened to federal revenues from 1945-2004 (source: Historical tables) Federal revenues dropped 15.7 for fiscal year 2004 (see attached graph) - the lowest level since the 1950s and greater than the deficit. Thus, if the Bush tax plan had not been enacted, there wouldn't be a deficit. Although these facts decisively put a stake in the heart of the theory that lowering taxes brings in more revenue, I am certain the faithful will continue to repeat the fallacy as fact.

[MTAtech]

Is there a point Mad?

[Theophylact]

Quote:

President Bush announced that the federal deficit is actually $296 billion less than originally forecast. The president credits low unemployment, high job growth, and the fact that he did the math himself.

Conan O'Brien

[mad1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Is there a point Mad?

Yes,read the total numbers. You made a attempted to portray that every year Clinton was in office the total number decreased and every year that Bush was in office the total number increased.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad1

Yes,read the total numbers. You made a attempted to portray that every year Clinton was in office the total number decreased and every year that Bush was in office the total number increased.

I think that you should read my post (the last one on page one) again. The post is consistent with what you said. Clinton was in office from 1993 through 2001. There was a deficit until 1998. The 1997 deficit shrank to $22b. The surplus started in 1998 and lasted until 2001. Since then, there's been a deficit - some are the biggest in history. That seems to jive with the table you presented.

[mad1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

I think that you should read my post (the last one on page one) again. The post is consistent with what you said. Clinton was in office from 1993 through 2001. There was a deficit until 1998. The 1997 deficit shrank to $22b. The surplus started in 1998 and lasted until 2001. Since then, there's been a deficit - some are the biggest in history. That seems to jive with the table you presented.

My main point here is that the tolal picture has to be figured in. One has to the the debits and credit together to determint the true number.If you lower the debts but intern lower the credits the percentage has remained the same. You neee to lower the debts and increase or keep the same the credits to reduce the overal debt.