Budget deficit nearly 100 billion less than anticipated

[Strk]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Whats 'it'?

The economy as it pertains to Joe Schmoe.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Better Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washi...8699725&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I dont understand any of you! Corporations have paid more taxes than anticipated. This is a good thing and you guys are acting like this is bad news. Talk about a liberal bias. Would you rather have the rich\corporations have a cut in earnings (which doesnt automatically go to you) and pay less taxes so the deficit is higher?

Isn't this the same budget projection that the dems said was unrealistic and impossible to meet?

What are you talking about? Nobody is wanting corporations to pay less in taxes. It is noted that most of the expansion is going to corporations and the wealthy with the middle class getting pretty much nothing. Real wages are down for the last 3 years while corporate profits are up 28% (last year alone) and the wealthy are going through the roof.

As for the budget projection, it was ratcheted up much higher for this year (see dullard's post above) and then it comes in lower and the horns start blowing. It will more than likely still be higher than last year. 500 billion deficits aren't anything to be proud of son.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Todd33
These are the guys that project a ridiculous amounts so when they beat it by a bit and boast? Old trick, but it's wearing thin. If they used realistic estimates, like those outside the government and WH control they would not be able brag about failure as well.

They recently projected the largest deficit ever, $100 billion higher than last year. So now, it may come in equal to last year. Watch all the R's become giddy that it beat projections even though it may be the 3rd or 4th highest deficit ever. This is what you call GOP fiscal conservatism.

Not even close when adjusted for inflation or related to GDP. Debt to GDP has starting dropping again, and hopefully that trend will continue. But yes, the folks in DC are still spending too much, or at least wasting too much money.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Better Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washi...8699725&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I dont understand any of you! Corporations have paid more taxes than anticipated. This is a good thing and you guys are acting like this is bad news. Talk about a liberal bias. Would you rather have the rich\corporations have a cut in earnings (which doesnt automatically go to you) and pay less taxes so the deficit is higher?

Isn't this the same budget projection that the dems said was unrealistic and impossible to meet?

What are you talking about? Nobody is wanting corporations to pay less in taxes. It is noted that most of the expansion is going to corporations and the wealthy with the middle class getting pretty much nothing. Real wages are down for the last 3 years while corporate profits are up 28% (last year alone) and the wealthy are going through the roof.

As for the budget projection, it was ratcheted up much higher for this year (see dullard's post above) and then it comes in lower and the horns start blowing. It will more than likely still be higher than last year. 500 billion deficits aren't anything to be proud of son.

A big part of that rachet up in this years spending was for katrina. That was about what about $60B extra that got pushed onto this years budget?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Strk
According to that NY Times article, it basically says that it's still pretty bad and that the improvements are mostly superficial.

Pretty much. Tax revenues as a % of GDP had hit 40+ year lows. Kinda hard to really go anywhere but up at this point but even that appears to be a struggle.

40 year low taxes is a good thing, not a bad thing. Unless you are one of those that beleive there is no problem that a tax cant solve....

 

[nergee]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Better Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washi...8699725&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I dont understand any of you! Corporations have paid more taxes than anticipated. This is a good thing and you guys are acting like this is bad news. Talk about a liberal bias. Would you rather have the rich\corporations have a cut in earnings (which doesnt automatically go to you) and pay less taxes so the deficit is higher?

Isn't this the same budget projection that the dems said was unrealistic and impossible to meet?

What are you talking about? Nobody is wanting corporations to pay less in taxes. It is noted that most of the expansion is going to corporations and the wealthy with the middle class getting pretty much nothing. Real wages are down for the last 3 years while corporate profits are up 28% (last year alone) and the wealthy are going through the roof.

As for the budget projection, it was ratcheted up much higher for this year (see dullard's post above) and then it comes in lower and the horns start blowing. It will more than likely still be higher than last year. 500 billion deficits aren't anything to be proud of son.

A big part of that rachet up in this years spending was for katrina. That was about what about $60B extra that got pushed onto this years budget?

A 60B charge in a 13T economy is like me charging my AMEX $300 for a LCD...........

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Better Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washi...8699725&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I dont understand any of you! Corporations have paid more taxes than anticipated. This is a good thing and you guys are acting like this is bad news. Talk about a liberal bias. Would you rather have the rich\corporations have a cut in earnings (which doesnt automatically go to you) and pay less taxes so the deficit is higher?

Isn't this the same budget projection that the dems said was unrealistic and impossible to meet?

What are you talking about? Nobody is wanting corporations to pay less in taxes. It is noted that most of the expansion is going to corporations and the wealthy with the middle class getting pretty much nothing. Real wages are down for the last 3 years while corporate profits are up 28% (last year alone) and the wealthy are going through the roof.

As for the budget projection, it was ratcheted up much higher for this year (see dullard's post above) and then it comes in lower and the horns start blowing. It will more than likely still be higher than last year. 500 billion deficits aren't anything to be proud of son.

A big part of that rachet up in this years spending was for katrina. That was about what about $60B extra that got pushed onto this years budget?

While true, part was also attributed to rising costs in Iraq. Also, IIRC, not much of the 60 billion for Katrina has actually been spent yet so I doubt it shows up on the deficit charts just yet (unless it was allocated and given and sitting in someone's account(s))

 

[Aisengard]

I thought the Iraq costs weren't even considered part of the yearly budget?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I thought the Iraq costs weren't even considered part of the yearly budget?

Whether they do or not, they still fall into the "deficit" category.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: nergee
good thing the GDP is growing at a nice clip...focus should be on policies to continue GDP expansion.....

Policies should be focused on fixing the balance of income, before it becomes a problem.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Strk
According to that NY Times article, it basically says that it's still pretty bad and that the improvements are mostly superficial.

Pretty much. Tax revenues as a % of GDP had hit 40+ year lows. Kinda hard to really go anywhere but up at this point but even that appears to be a struggle.

40 year low taxes is a good thing, not a bad thing. Unless you are one of those that beleive there is no problem that a tax cant solve....

:roll:

$500 billion deficts are just jim-dandy!


:roll:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I assume that deficit projection includes the SS SURPLUS (which should be a record this year). Accordingly, the deficit as a %GDP is still north of 5%+ . . . the same place its been for most of the fiscally-mismanaged Bush years.

I believe the accumulated debt under the Bush Regime is approaching $3 trillion. When you factor in the long term liabilities from Iraq and the Medicare Modernization Act . . . geez!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dullard
They recently projected the largest deficit ever, $100 billion higher than last year. So now, it may come in equal to last year. Watch all the R's become giddy that it beat projections even though it may be the 3rd or 4th highest deficit ever. This is what you call GOP fiscal conservatism.

Not even close when adjusted for inflation or related to GDP. Debt to GDP has starting dropping again, and hopefully that trend will continue. But yes, the folks in DC are still spending too much, or at least wasting too much money.

What isn't even close? I can see two potential ideas coming from your reply, and I don't know which one you are discussing. Is it:

1) I mentioned that the deficit this year will be about equal to that of last year. Are you saying that these two deficits will not be close due to inflation? Because, inflation is just 4%, so even if they deficits came out to be exactly equal dollarwise, after inflation they are still within 4%. 4% error is quite close to me.

2) I mentioned it may be the 3rd or 4th highest deficit ever. Are you trying to say that you want to adjust the deficit for all years in history for inflation? Because if this is what you are arguing, then yes, 1943-1945 were very slightly higher deficits after adjusting for inflation. Thus, it'll be the 6th or 7th highest ever.

As for debt to GDP dropping, it did drop from March 2006 (66.0%) to May 2006 (65.1%). But that is just a small drop in the bucket. And that is because March is statistically always much higher than the surrounding months (that is just how our tracking system works). May 2006 debt to GDP (65.1%) is still higher than it was in May 2005 (64.6%). Heck, it is higher than virtually all of 2005 (which was as low as 64.2%). All data for this paragraph is straight from the Skeptical Optimist. So, technically we are down in the last 2 months. But we are still high, and higher than 2005. It isn't anything to get excited about yet. Even the Skepical Optimist predicts it'll jump back up and won't continue this downward trend.

At least we agree they are wasting too much money.

 

[CaptnKirk]

How in the hell does spending $ 100 Million less than they had predicted, and spending $ 400 Million
instead of spending $500 Million suddenly become some kind of $ 100,000 Million cash profit?

That's like going out to buy a $ 50,000 car and instead you buy a $ 40,000 car - you didn't make $ 10,000 on the deal,
you don't have that extra $ 10,000 credited to your bank - you just don't have to make the higher payments on the 'extra' $ 10K.

THis 'Fuzzy Math' is just plain stupid.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
How in the hell does spending $ 100 Million less than they had predicted, and spending $ 400 Million
instead of spending $500 Million suddenly become some kind of $ 100,000 Million cash profit?

That's like going out to buy a $ 50,000 car and instead you buy a $ 40,000 car - you didn't make $ 10,000 on the deal,
you don't have that extra $ 10,000 credited to your bank - you just don't have to make the higher payments on the 'extra' $ 10K.

THis 'Fuzzy Math' is just plain stupid.

GOP PR: Despite the expense of Homeland Security, the War on Terror, and expanding government entitlements (OK they might omit that one), we are reigning in government spending, cutting taxes, and growing the economy.



Reality: We've forsaken virtually all forethought, discretion, and deliberation in the budgetary process. The GOP government has dramatically expanded discretionary spending across the board . . . except crap like the EPA and FDA. We've created a new entitlement that exacerbates the quite vexing problem of long-term funding of Medicare. We continue to pretend that it's unknowable how much operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost one month to the next. But let's be honest . . . you don't really want to know anyway.

Meanwhile, real inflation (healthcare, education, fuel) is rising significantly, while wages are stagnant. Our tax policy overwelmingly favors corporations and the wealthy. The economy continues to grow b/c Americans (just like their government) continue to live beyond their means.

 

[ayabe]

Just think of all the extra revenue we could collect from corporations who have their headquarters as a PO Box in the Virgin Islands so they can avoid paying any taxes.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Better Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washi...8699725&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I dont understand any of you! Corporations have paid more taxes than anticipated. This is a good thing and you guys are acting like this is bad news. Talk about a liberal bias. Would you rather have the rich\corporations have a cut in earnings (which doesnt automatically go to you) and pay less taxes so the deficit is higher?

Isn't this the same budget projection that the dems said was unrealistic and impossible to meet?

Youre a tool. Did you know that if corporations paid their FAIR share according to tax laws YOUR total tax would be cut in half? Did you also know that the IRS lets corporations file two separate financial statements to them--one the share holders and one for the IRS? Did you know that this is because corporations hide income in over-seas tax shelters? This is income that the IRS will never see...try this for enlightenment.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Better Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washi...8699725&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I dont understand any of you! Corporations have paid more taxes than anticipated. This is a good thing and you guys are acting like this is bad news. Talk about a liberal bias. Would you rather have the rich\corporations have a cut in earnings (which doesnt automatically go to you) and pay less taxes so the deficit is higher?

Isn't this the same budget projection that the dems said was unrealistic and impossible to meet?

Youre a tool. Did you know that if corporations paid their FAIR share according to tax laws YOUR total tax would be cut in half? Did you also know that the IRS lets corporations file two separate financial statements to them--one the share holders and one for the IRS? Did you know that this is because corporations hide income in over-seas tax shelters? This is income that the IRS will never see...try this for enlightenment.

I always found it fascinating that a company could keep (at least) two sets of books. One for the government bean counters and another for public obfusca . . . I mean consumption.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

We continue to pretend that it's unknowable how much operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost one month to the next. But let's be honest . . . you don't really want to know anyway.

(Not directed at BBD)

There has not been one penny of the cost of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan accounted for in the Governments' spending policy.
Every bit has been Emergency Spending, to be accounted for and tallied at a later date, completely hidden from cost analysis.
They were only able to do that for the fist 2 or 3 years of Vietnam before cost expendutures had to be verified.
Timeline has expired, they have to account for this financila burden pretty soon, and it will be devastating to behold.
So fat they are some $ 500 Billion per year for 3+ years behind in the tally - try adding the $ 1.5 Trillion deficit
to these figures and then tell me how wonderful and rosey it really is without chugging some syrup of ipecac.

 

[Jaskalas]

So we ignore good news we don?t like, and change the subject to bad news and denounce anyone who would speak of the original topic because we don?t like it.

Could you all just stop for a second and admit that higher revenue from the rich is a good thing? Now, feel free to continue this corporate witch hunt.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

^^I'm not sure about your numbers but I agree with the perspective. Congress has vigorously debated the need to make cutbacks of several billion in a variety of domestic programs. Yet the debate over how much and how and why to fund the War on the Treasury has been strikingly muted.

Even the few brave souls that voted against it . . . still vote for it.

But there's no reason to worry . . . GDP growth will take care of all our problems.:roll:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dullard
They recently projected the largest deficit ever, $100 billion higher than last year. So now, it may come in equal to last year. Watch all the R's become giddy that it beat projections even though it may be the 3rd or 4th highest deficit ever. This is what you call GOP fiscal conservatism.

Not even close when adjusted for inflation or related to GDP. Debt to GDP has starting dropping again, and hopefully that trend will continue. But yes, the folks in DC are still spending too much, or at least wasting too much money.

What isn't even close? I can see two potential ideas coming from your reply, and I don't know which one you are discussing. Is it:

1) I mentioned that the deficit this year will be about equal to that of last year. Are you saying that these two deficits will not be close due to inflation? Because, inflation is just 4%, so even if they deficits came out to be exactly equal dollarwise, after inflation they are still within 4%. 4% error is quite close to me.

2) I mentioned it may be the 3rd or 4th highest deficit ever. Are you trying to say that you want to adjust the deficit for all years in history for inflation? Because if this is what you are arguing, then yes, 1943-1945 were very slightly higher deficits after adjusting for inflation. Thus, it'll be the 6th or 7th highest ever.

As for debt to GDP dropping, it did drop from March 2006 (66.0%) to May 2006 (65.1%). But that is just a small drop in the bucket. And that is because March is statistically always much higher than the surrounding months (that is just how our tracking system works). May 2006 debt to GDP (65.1%) is still higher than it was in May 2005 (64.6%). Heck, it is higher than virtually all of 2005 (which was as low as 64.2%). All data for this paragraph is straight from the Skeptical Optimist. So, technically we are down in the last 2 months. But we are still high, and higher than 2005. It isn't anything to get excited about yet. Even the Skepical Optimist predicts it'll jump back up and won't continue this downward trend.

At least we agree they are wasting too much money.

I was referring to #2. Which is worse a $300B defecit today or a $300B defecit in the 80s when demecrats controled house and senate spent more than every budget proposed by Reagan? Or how does it compare to 200B+ defecits clinton had in his first few terms? The current numbers may be large, but once property adjusted, you will notice there is not much difference. Right now we appear to be settling down to somewhat normal level of debt when adjusted to inflation or compared to GDP.


historical data from the cbo.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
^^I'm not sure about your numbers but I agree with the perspective. Congress has vigorously debated the need to make cutbacks of several billion in a variety of domestic programs. Yet the debate over how much and how and why to fund the War on the Treasury has been strikingly muted.

Even the few brave souls that voted against it . . . still vote for it.

But there's no reason to worry . . . GDP growth will take care of all our problems.:roll:

The problem is the broken tax code. No profits are really escaping the IRS by having an office in the caymans. Even with a office in the caymans, all profits earned in the US are taxable by the IRS. However if say they have an office in the caymans and they have profits from operations in the US and Germany, they will not pay taxes based on German operations. However they will be paying the German IRS for those profits. But the interesting thing is, the German IRS will not tax a German company for profits made in the US. So without an offshore office, US companies are at a tax disadvantage when doing business abroad as they are taxed both at home and away.

Fix the tax code.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
How in the hell does spending $ 100 Million less than they had predicted, and spending $ 400 Million
instead of spending $500 Million suddenly become some kind of $ 100,000 Million cash profit?

That's like going out to buy a $ 50,000 car and instead you buy a $ 40,000 car - you didn't make $ 10,000 on the deal,
you don't have that extra $ 10,000 credited to your bank - you just don't have to make the higher payments on the 'extra' $ 10K.

THis 'Fuzzy Math' is just plain stupid.

it's the same math used when funding for a program is increased, but not by the amount the other side wanted, and then they start screaming about a funding "cut."

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
^^I'm not sure about your numbers but I agree with the perspective. Congress has vigorously debated the need to make cutbacks of several billion in a variety of domestic programs. Yet the debate over how much and how and why to fund the War on the Treasury has been strikingly muted.

Even the few brave souls that voted against it . . . still vote for it.

But there's no reason to worry . . . GDP growth will take care of all our problems.:roll:

The problem is the broken tax code. No profits are really escaping the IRS by having an office in the caymans. Even with a office in the caymans, all profits earned in the US are taxable by the IRS. However if say they have an office in the caymans and they have profits from operations in the US and Germany, they will not pay taxes based on German operations. However they will be paying the German IRS for those profits. But the interesting thing is, the German IRS will not tax a German company for profits made in the US. So without an offshore office, US companies are at a tax disadvantage when doing business abroad as they are taxed both at home and away.

Fix the tax code.

Taxes paid in other countries are a tax write-off here, I believe.