Deficit Shrinks???

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
No. Instead, it plans to ask for funding in the form of supplemental appropriations from Congress in early 2005

Supplemental appropriations arent part of the overall budget? Changing a cost from one budget to the next doesnt change the total bottom line. Besides, appropriations dont count until the money is spent, which could be over a perioud of several years as the article points out.

The appropriatioins for Iraq aren't included in the budget. And we know they're spent over a period of years, having already spent $200 billion or so over the last two years.

Correct, when President Bush presents his budget every year to the Congress, it does not include any war expenditures. Normal defense and military budgets, yes. War, no. We've supplementaled about $300 billion so far and I think around $150 billion have been spent so far. I think.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
...
Are you really trying to evade the fact that tax receipts have risen fairly steadily for the last hundred years or so, whether taxes were raised, cut, or left unchanged. Your claim that tax cuts were somehow responsible for increased tax receipts is speculative, to put it mildly.

so if they raise regardless, then tax cuts are an obvious choice!

Not at all. You conveniently deleted my quote addressing this:

• That is deceptive. Tax receipts have risen more or less steadily for most of the last century: after tax cuts, after tax increases, after no tax changes at all. This is a simple and obvious consequence of a growing economy and an inflating dollar. The valid question is how much did each tax cut reduce the rate of revenue growth.
  
  The "tax cuts fuel growth" mantra has been faithfully parroted since the Reagonomics era, yet there is scant objective evidence it is true to any material extent, no data to objectively quantify the specific impact of cuts compared to the hundreds of other factors affecting the economy. Economists are divided, to say the least. In short, the tax cut religion is based on speculation and faith, not good science.
  
  National debt, on the other hand, places a very real and measurable drain on our economy, and is beginning to show a psychological impact on investors, foreign and domestic. If the world continues to lose confidence in America's financial health, we may lose the investment we need to sustain growth. This poses a much greater risk to the U.S. economy than moderately higher taxes.

If you were going to be intellectually honest about things your highlighted statement should read : The valid question is how much did each tax cut affect the rate of revenue growth.

You can't assume that reduced tax rates will cause a reduced rate of revenue growth if, in the next paragraph you assert:

no data to objectively quantify the specific impact of cuts compared to the hundreds of other factors affecting the economy

As fas as being based on faith as opposed to science, Train's quote sums it up nicely. There have been three (four if you count Dubbya's cuts) major tax cuts in the 20th century. All three had very positive effects on revenue growth and growth in the economy. We know this because we have data to study. Where you have data to study combined with evidence of past performance you pass out of the world of speculation and faith and into the world of applied theory. To say that tax cuts are akin to religion is to say that economics as a whole is little more than religion as well. I think most economists would argue that economics is a little more concrete than that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
...
Are you really trying to evade the fact that tax receipts have risen fairly steadily for the last hundred years or so, whether taxes were raised, cut, or left unchanged. Your claim that tax cuts were somehow responsible for increased tax receipts is speculative, to put it mildly.

so if they raise regardless, then tax cuts are an obvious choice!

Not at all. You conveniently deleted my quote addressing this:

• That is deceptive. Tax receipts have risen more or less steadily for most of the last century: after tax cuts, after tax increases, after no tax changes at all. This is a simple and obvious consequence of a growing economy and an inflating dollar. The valid question is how much did each tax cut reduce the rate of revenue growth.
  
  The "tax cuts fuel growth" mantra has been faithfully parroted since the Reagonomics era, yet there is scant objective evidence it is true to any material extent, no data to objectively quantify the specific impact of cuts compared to the hundreds of other factors affecting the economy. Economists are divided, to say the least. In short, the tax cut religion is based on speculation and faith, not good science.
  
  National debt, on the other hand, places a very real and measurable drain on our economy, and is beginning to show a psychological impact on investors, foreign and domestic. If the world continues to lose confidence in America's financial health, we may lose the investment we need to sustain growth. This poses a much greater risk to the U.S. economy than moderately higher taxes.

If you were going to be intellectually honest about things your highlighted statement should read : The valid question is how much did each tax cut affect the rate of revenue growth.

You can't assume that reduced tax rates will cause a reduced rate of revenue growth if, in the next paragraph you assert:

no data to objectively quantify the specific impact of cuts compared to the hundreds of other factors affecting the economy

Point taken. I believe it to be true, but cannot objectively prove it.

As fas as being based on faith as opposed to science, Train's quote sums it up nicely. There have been three (four if you count Dubbya's cuts) major tax cuts in the 20th century. All three had very positive effects on revenue growth and growth in the economy.

Speculation. Historically, we would have expected revenue growth and growth in the economy anyway. That is my point. You cannot establish a causal relationship between the two.

We know this because we have data to study. Where you have data to study combined with evidence of past performance you pass out of the world of speculation and faith and into the world of applied theory. To say that tax cuts are akin to religion is to say that economics as a whole is little more than religion as well. I think most economists would argue that economics is a little more concrete than that.

Not at all. Yes, we have data to study. What does it show? "Tax receipts have risen more or less steadily for most of the last century: after tax cuts, after tax increases, after no tax changes at all. This is a simple and obvious consequence of a growing economy and an inflating dollar." The data not only does NOT prove a causal relationship, it suggests otherwise since the same effects were seen after tax increases.