Psst, the Deficit?s Shrinking

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Psst, the Deficit?s Shrinking
Why won?t anyone say it?

Here?s one story you won?t find on tomorrow?s front pages: ?The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Shrinking Rapidly.? The headline would be accurate, but the mainstream media is much more interested in talking down this booming economy than telling it like it is.

This week?s Treasury report on the nation?s finances for December shows a year-to-date fiscal 2005 deficit that is already $11 billion less than last year?s. In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks.

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product, the new-year deficit will descend to 2.9 percent compared with last year?s deficit share of 3.6 percent.

Wire reports are loaded these days with accounts of an expanded trade gap (driven mostly by slower exports to stagnant European and Japanese economies, along with higher oil imports from the peak in energy prices). But there?s not a single report I can find that mentions the sizable narrowing in U.S. fiscal accounts. Behind this really big budget story is the even-bigger story: The explosion in tax revenues has been prompted by the tax-cut-led economic growth of the past eighteen months.

With 50 percent cash-bonus expensing for the purchase of plant and equipment, productivity-driven corporate profits ranging around 20 percent have generated a 45 percent rise in business taxes. At lower income-tax rates, employment gains of roughly 2.5 million are throwing off more than 6 percent in payroll-tax receipts. Personal tax revenues are rising at a near 9 percent pace.

Meanwhile, in the wake of strong stock market advances over the last two years, non-withheld revenues from individuals ? including investor dividends and capital gains that are now taxed at only 15 percent ? have jumped by over 14 percent.

Following the Clinton cap-gains tax cut and savings expansion bill of 1997, investment-related tax collections led to bull-market budget surpluses in the pre-9/11 period of 1997-2001. However, despite the flood of new revenues, this year?s federal budget is still overspending. Domestic spending on non-entitlement programs (excluding homeland defense) is rising at a 4.1 percent rate. That?s more than twice the pace of core inflation. But this may be changing.

According to the Washington Post, the Bush budget totals planned for fiscal year 2006 may be essentially unchanged from the totals for fiscal year 2005 (excluding defense and homeland security). According to reporter Jonathan Weisman, the administration?s first really tough budget request (due out next month) ?would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments.?

The rapid growth of federal health care and other entitlements would also be slowed markedly. Though the numbers are not yet available, this sounds a bit like Ronald Reagan?s tax-cutting budget of 1981. In addition to reducing the top personal tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent, the Gipper proposed budget cuts that would be worth nearly $100 billion in today?s dollars.

Of course, the political screaming over the forthcoming budget has already begun. A passel of Democrats and at least one Republican, Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming, have written a protest letter to Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Former-Gov. John Engler of Michigan, a Republican and the current president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has pledged to fight the elimination of various protectionist subsidies to his member firms.

However, Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is the current chair of the upper chamber?s budget committee and a long-time Bush ally, is set to support the administration?s new budget discipline. This includes, by the way, Bush?s plan to reduce Social Security benefits by replacing wage indexing with a price-level formula and extending the retirement age ? one or the other, or both ? in return for personal saving accounts.

By the way, Treasury Secretary John Snow just completed a Wall Street tour where leading bond traders told him not to sweat the transitional costs for personal accounts. The traders said that an additional $100 billion a year over the next decade for transitional financing will be easily manageable. ?A rounding error,? one senior trader told Snow.

A supply-side tax-reform movement, a shrinking budget deficit, newfound spending discipline, and a determination to confound conventional wisdom by reforming Social Security has George W. Bush?s second term off to a roaring start ? even before he is officially sworn in.

Link
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Why am I not surprised to find that a fundy Christian is enamored with Bush even on economic policy?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Why am I not surprised to find that a fundy Christian is enamored with Bush even on economic policy?

That's why they are Master of Spin & Bull. Have to give them credit for that, it's working on most of the Sheeple.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Only 355,000,000,000?

Only $3,550 per taxpayer (approximately 100 million). Debt doesn't matter anyway...to anybody anymore, especially politicians.

Spend more I say......and give a few tax breaks too. :)
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Sssh. Keep it down. The republicans get wind of the deficit shrinking they'll find a way to blow even more money ;)
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
It is funny that Larry Kudlow, one of the talking heads on CNBC is complaining that "Mainstream Media" is not reporting that the deficit is "shrinking". Why doesn't he report it on his show?
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

Seriously, independent of whether you originally thought the war was a good idea, people need to start realizing the war was so not worth it from a financial viewpoint. Whatever benefits it had (lol), it hasn't been worth it financially.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

Shhhh, you're talking about 50.9% of the Country.

 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

Seriously, independent of whether you originally thought the war was a good idea, people need to start realizing the war was so not worth it from a financial viewpoint. Whatever benefits it had (lol), it hasn't been worth it financially.



Well when the war started or was about to start, the war mongers were claiming how "Iraq is going to repay the US back from the money they get in oil". We all know that statement is/was laughable.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

Seriously, independent of whether you originally thought the war was a good idea, people need to start realizing the war was so not worth it from a financial viewpoint. Whatever benefits it had (lol), it hasn't been worth it financially.



Well when the war started or was about to start, the war mongers were claiming how "Iraq is going to repay the US back from the money they get in oil". We all know that statement is/was laughable.

Oh yeah that is hiiilarious. It deserves its own thread. :laugh:
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
According to the Washington Post, the Bush budget totals planned for fiscal year 2006 may be essentially unchanged from the totals for fiscal year 2005 (excluding defense and homeland security). According to reporter Jonathan Weisman, the administration?s first really tough budget request (due out next month) ?would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments.?
Even if the first sentence is true, the key word is "planned". During his first reign Bush proposed rampant spending to which the GOPie Congress heaped additional pork upon. The next sentence, according to reporter is worse than the ubiquitous unnamed administration official. Regardless, the majority of Congress will not support passing the buck down to states. Sadly, if Bush hadn't succeeded in modernizing Medicare, government would have at least $50B a year more. Money which could be spent on other programs . . . or dare I say it . . . not spent at all.

The rapid growth of federal health care and other entitlements would also be slowed markedly. Though the numbers are not yet available, this sounds a bit like Ronald Reagan?s tax-cutting budget of 1981. In addition to reducing the top personal tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent, the Gipper proposed budget cuts that would be worth nearly $100 billion in today?s dollars.
Uhh, the Gipper was an actor. In reality, he blew a huge hole in the budget but can take credit for little else. Regardless, there will NOT be a marked slowing in the growth of federal healthcare and other entitlements. Why? Look up the definition of "entitlement" and maybe you will have a clue. Congress EXPANDED entitlements when they passed the Medicare Modernization Act . . . which will get MORE expensive EVERY year. Congress expanded the military's crappy universal healthcare program (Tricare) to all active duty personnel . . . including Guard, Reserves, and their families. IIRC, less than 20% of all "new" eligibles are currently participating but as private health insurance continues to rise double digits each year, more people will consider and then enroll in Tricare. Further, the thousands of soldiers wounded in Iraq/Afghanistan will continue to swell the ranks of VA facilities.

The only hope of Bush, the Lesser is to convince states that they want to foot more of the bill for Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs. It's a highly unlikely scenario considering Medicaid is already strangling many state budgets.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

Shhhh, you're talking about 50.9% of the Country.
No, he's talking about 50.9% of the people who voted. Thats less than 25% of the entire country.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

Shhhh, you're talking about 50.9% of the Country.
No, he's talking about 50.9% of the people who voted. Thats less than 25% of the entire country.

A report just came out that the highest Voter turnout since 1968 at 60.7%.

49% to 50.9% so it was actually closer to 10% of the Country determined the outcome.

Split that you have 4.9% Left not so Religious and not Brainwashed Vs the 5.1% RRR FLL's

Basically the Ohio numbers.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching the news today and they are actually having polling places in the US for Iraqis living here. They are also going to spend millions on security for these US polling places. What a money pit that sh!t hole has become. I can't believe anybody with half a brain would still support this throwing away of money.

Shhhh, you're talking about 50.9% of the Country.
No, he's talking about 50.9% of the people who voted. Thats less than 25% of the entire country.

A report just came out that the highest Voter turnout since 1968 at 60.7%.

49% to 50.9% so it was actually closer to 10% of the Country determined the outcome.

Split that you have 4.9% Left not so Religious and not Brainwashed Vs the 5.1% RRR FLL's

Basically the Ohio numbers.
I'm not following your math. Some 60 million people voted for Bush. Total U.S. population is ~280 million IIRC. 60M out of 280M is about 21.4%.

 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Do you know what's funny...US spends about $350 a year on interest payments on the debt.

You guys actually do have a balanced budget...

kinda ;)
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Do you know what's funny...US spends about $350 a year on interest payments on the debt.

You guys actually do have a balanced budget...

kinda ;)

$350? I think it is a lot more than that. One day interest on the national debt will consume the entire budget and the government will collapse. Then it will be time to party like it's 2099.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Stunt
Do you know what's funny...US spends about $350 a year on interest payments on the debt.

You guys actually do have a balanced budget...

kinda ;)

$350? I think it is a lot more than that. One day interest on the national debt will consume the entire budget and the government will collapse. Then it will be time to party like it's 2099.

Then i can make make own country :D
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,791
6,350
126
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Stunt
Do you know what's funny...US spends about $350 a year on interest payments on the debt.

You guys actually do have a balanced budget...

kinda ;)

$350? I think it is a lot more than that. One day interest on the national debt will consume the entire budget and the government will collapse. Then it will be time to party like it's 2099.

Forgot some zeros for sure, 12.

I question the usefullness of the data stated in the OP. Isn't it normal for Income Tax revenue to have begun pouring in at this time? Isn't this before Budgets and Spending Bills have begun to be passed for the 2005(perhaps 2006) Fiscal Year? Might not be, but if either is a "Yes", extrapolating current Data through the rest of the Year will lead to inaccurate results.