Record Revenues for 2011

[piasabird]

According to the CBO estimates we will have record revenues for 2011. We dont need more money, we just need to spend it better.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3277&type=0&sequence=2

Drop down to the revenues section and check it out.

The president is lying to you. Read it and weep!

 

[dank69]

Why did you link a document from 2002?

 

[thraashman]

Why did you link a document from 2002?

Because he wanted to point out that had Bush not run the economy into the ground, gave the rich tax breaks rather than pay down the debt, and had a full Republican congress for 6 years that are directly at fault for a massive economic decline, then we would have record revenues. But thanks to the Right, we're in a recession that has given us major monetary problems.

...So I think he's arguing against the Republican party.

 

[ProfJohn]

Maybe he is arguing that 10 year projections are worthless and that we should stop framing debates around them...

 

[sunzt]

According to the CBO estimates we will have record revenues for 2011. We dont need more money, we just need to spend it better.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3277&type=0&sequence=2

Drop down to the revenues section and check it out.

The president is lying to you. Read it and weep!

 

[sandorski]

woot, Surplus...oh wait, what dank said.

 

[senseamp]

Thread FAIL.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe he is arguing that 10 year projections are worthless and that we should stop framing debates around them...

Projections assume that current conditions remain static, for eg, Tax Rates. Once you start changing things, the Projections no longer apply.

The biggest problem with Projections is that even if controllable factors(Tax Rates again and others) remain constant, other factors will inevitably occur that can not be controlled. However, in the case of the Bush Admin they themselves were the greatest contributor in making these Projections moot.

 

[dank69]

Maybe he is arguing that 10 year projections are worthless and that we should stop framing debates around them...

Third paragraph:

If current tax and spending policies remain in place, the total budget will show a deficit of $21 billion in 2002 and $14 billion in 2003, CBO projects (see Tables 1-1 and 1-2). Total budget surpluses reemerge in 2004 in CBO's baseline and accumulate to almost $2.3 trillion between 2003 and 2012 (the current 10-year projection period). But 80 percent of that cumulative surplus occurs in the last five years of the period, and almost half comes in the final two years--when the projections are, by their nature, the most uncertain. The surpluses projected for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 are particularly large because all of the remaining tax-cut provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) are scheduled to expire in December 2010. That expiration significantly boosts projected revenues.

Oh look they addressed your point. Tell me again who blocked the expiration of the tax cuts?

 

[Macamus Prime]

I masturbated during this timeline,.... did THAT affect the outcome as well?

Yes - of course it did. Had I not touched myself, none of us would be in this mess.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

According to the CBO estimates we will have record revenues for 2011. We dont need more money, we just need to spend it better.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3277&type=0&sequence=2

Drop down to the revenues section and check it out.

The president is lying to you. Read it and weep!

Oh please please please come back and follow up on your thread.

 

[JS80]

loliberals *woosh*

 

[Blackjack200]

loliberals *woosh*

Not really. Just a complete threadfail.

 

[ProfJohn]

Oh look they addressed your point. Tell me again who blocked the expiration of the tax cuts?

They couldn't even get the numbers for 2002 right.

Why do we use 10 year numbers when debating the budget.... It is like telling your wife that you can afford a BMW today because you expect to have a promotion and a pay raise 5 years from now...

Deficit projections from 2002 document:
2002 -21b
2003 -14b
2004 +54b
2005 +103b
Reality!
2002 -157b
2003 -377b
2004 -412b
2005 -318b

The missed the 2002 figures by over $100 billion alone!!!

Forget that BMW, according to the CBO I should buy a Porsche and expect that promotion and pay raise to come this year.

 

[jman19]

Please tell me this is a joke thread.

 

[jackstar7]

I masturbated during this timeline,.... did THAT affect the outcome as well?

Yes - of course it did. Had I not touched myself, none of us would be in this mess.

In circle jerks, as in ghost capturing: don't cross the streams.

 

[sandorski]

In circle jerks, as in ghost capturing: don't cross the streams.

Crossing the stream adds 75% to the thrill. However, there is a direct correlation between proximity, so one can get a 74% bonus thrill without crossing sides.

 

[woolfe9999]

The OP is basing his conclusion off a 9 year old CBO projection that doesn't even take account of the recession or numerous other developments since. This thread is utter FAIL and frankly I don't understand why any further comment is even necessary.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

They couldn't even get the numbers for 2002 right.

Why do we use 10 year numbers when debating the budget.... It is like telling your wife that you can afford a BMW today because you expect to have a promotion and a pay raise 5 years from now...

Deficit projections from 2002 document:
2002 -21b
2003 -14b
2004 +54b
2005 +103b
Reality!
2002 -157b
2003 -377b
2004 -412b
2005 -318b

The missed the 2002 figures by over $100 billion alone!!!

Forget that BMW, according to the CBO I should buy a Porsche and expect that promotion and pay raise to come this year.

Well how were they supposed to know how much off budget money GWB would spend on Aphganistan and his yet to come WMD hunt in Iraq?

Damn you pwn yourself on a daily basis

 

[ProfJohn]

Well how were they supposed to know how much off budget money GWB would spend on Aphganistan and his yet to come WMD hunt in Iraq?

Damn you pwn yourself on a daily basis

Yea, in 2004 we spent $400 billion in Iraq...

 

[her209]

Tax cuts were supposed to generate enough revenue to pay for all this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_W._Bush_legislation_and_programs#Legislation_signed

 

[Jaskalas]

Why did you link a document from 2002?

You're not supposed to read it...

 

[dank69]

You're not supposed to read it...

oops, my bad.

 

[sm625]

Revenue does not matter because it is not adjusted for the 3 trillion added to the Fed balance sheet and dumped onto wall street. In reality, revenues should be AT LEAST 30% higher than they were in 2008. That was the gambit they played 3 years ago. It failed. As expected. Due to the credit contraction we are undergoing. One only needs to look at employment. 10% of the workforce has been eviscerated in the last 3 years. That is a fact that cannot be spun. Now you tell me how a 10% smaller workforce is able to generate higher revenues for the government? The only way is through obvious inflation. But since the government is manipulating the statistic aka soviet union, the poor are being robbed. And the retired are being robbed as well. Will either group ever care? Eventually yes. The sooner the better.

 

[werepossum]

In circle jerks, as in ghost capturing: don't cross the streams.

That's just SO wrong, and yet it made me laugh SO hard.