And we're still running a deficit so big that when he was a candidate the President called it "unpatriotic". For the thousandth time. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $2,663,426,000,000 for the first 11 months of the fiscal year this August, but the federal government still ran a $589,185,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the latest Monthly Treasury Statement.... The largest share of the tax revenue so far this year has come from individual income taxes, which totaled $1,233,274,000,000 in the first 11 months of fiscal 2014. The Treasury has been tracking this data since 1977, and at that time, the federal government collected$1,262,469,450,000 in inflation-adjusted revenue in the first 11 months of fiscal 1977. This means that since then, revenues have more than doubled, increasing by 111 percent.... Although the federal government brought in a record of approximately $2,663,426,000,000 in revenue in the first 11 months of fiscal 2014, according to the Treasury, it also spent approximately $3,252,611,000,000, leaving a deficit of approximately $589,185,000,000
News flash, the deficit for this year is now lower than before Obama took office according to the latest figures.
Considering that the U S GDP in 1977 was $6 trillion and in 2013 almost $16 trillion, the fact that tax revenues have gone up 111% means less taxes in 2014 than in 1977. You can pretty much guarantee that the government will continue to take in "record" amounts of tax revenue every year. Its a simply correlation.
Since we set a new population record every year, it wouldn't make sense for tax revenues to decrease. But, when dealing with Republican 'statisticians' and 'economists', half of the story (or less) is usually the best you can hope for.
or the continued wastage in the profitable wars on Iraq and Afghanistan that has Halliburton and Dick Cheney applauding
You're data is now a little out of date, we know the FY2014 deficit came in at $486 billion, revenues at $3,003.0B, and spending $at 3,499.0B. http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/377665-deficit-sees-another-sharp-drop.html Revenues jumped after the 2013 tax increase, which played a big role in reducing the deficit by about $600 billion over the last two years. And you are correct in a nominal sense, the dollar value is the highest its ever been. But as anyone with a bit of financial knowledge will tell you, you can't compare government budget numbers over time. The only meaningful measure it to compare them to a benchmark, and GDP is normally used. Year - Rev:GDP 2000 19.7% 2001 18.7% 2002 16.9% 2003 15.5% 2004 15.3% 2005 16.4% 2006 17.4% 2007 17.7% 2008 17.1% 2009 14.6% 2010 14.5% 2011 14.8% 2012 15.2% 2013 16.5% 2014 17.2% So while we've hit a nominal record (which typically happens every year barring major tax cuts or massive recession) as the data shows, we are far from a record comparatively. Had revenues in 2014 been proportionally the same same as in 2000 (i.e. 19.7% of GDP), they would have been $3,441.6B, which would have virtually wiped out the deficit. Spending on the other hand, has decreased dramatically over the past five year relative to GDP: 2009 3,517.7 24.4% 2010 3,457.1 23.1% 2011 3,603.1 23.2% 2012 3,537.1 21.9% 2013 3,454.6 20.6% 2014 3,499.0 20.0% That level of decrease is unprecedented in US history, at least in modern times. We are now spending less (relative to GDP) than each and every year Reagan and Bush1 were president. So, politics aside, it is very much open to debate whether our problem is a spending one versus a revenue one.
There is an optimal level of government spending relative to GDP but danged if I know what it is. Too much spending, the economy dies/too little spending the economy dies. I've tried to drag Republicans into this debate but they refuse to bite. They'd rather say "any spending is too much spending" or some other goofball Reagan tritism. As I see it, they would prefer to kill GDP so any spending looks high as a percentage. Then they can (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). PS, I'm not an economist by any stretch - just a business fella.
Look at it this way, from about 1950 to about 2000 government spending averaged around 19% of GDP and revenues around 18%. Since 2000 government spending has increased to an average closer to 20% but average revenues have declined to around 16%. Projections are for government spending to decline below 19% by the end of this decade and revenues to decline to around 15% Is that a spending problem or a revenue problem?
Neither are a problem. Reagan proved that deficits do not matter. Nah, all I am trying to figure out is the ratio of government spending to GDP (forget about revenues for now or assume spending and revenues balance) that makes the economy hum. Some say 5%, others say 18 to 20%, others say 50%+, even others say all government spending is immoral (that one creeps me out). I'm sure there is a quantifiable, objective, optimal, level that is not subject to religious interference. If we include a war reserve and a natural catastrophe reserve, my guess is that 28 to 30% would do it.
Reagan didn't prove anything. Looking at historical data from many nations it is clear that below 15% of GDP governments are incapable of maintaining public services at a level necessary for the private economy to grow. It is also clear that above 60% the government captures too much of the national income, making it difficult for private business to flourish. In most developed nations total government spending is 40-50% of GDP, including universal health care. In the US federal government spending is around 20% of GDP. Government spending at the state and local level accounts for another 15%, without universal health care.
And we're trying to keep federal spending to 22 to 23% or less, and we have a bigger defense budget than the next 20 defense budgets combined. Somewhere, somehow, some Republican has to get real. This ain't Sparta and we ain't Spartans.
Federal spending was down to 20.0% in 2014. An unprecedented decline, at least in modern history, at the very time the economy was trying to recover from the worst recession since the GD. We are currently spending, relative to GDP, less than every year Reagan and Bush1 were in office.
Imagine what the percentage would be if the economy was moving. But in defense of Republicans everywhere, if you can just stall GDP, spending will always look too high to the great unwashed. Obama has threaded his way through their traps and stone walls masterfully. He must've been a gamer as a youth.
So what? He and the Democrats took the last Bush/Republican deficit of just $161B to $1,400B in just two years and it is still 50% than the WORST Bush/Republican deficit of $400B during the recovery from the 2001 recession.
You mean when the Democrats controlled spending then too? But SO WHAT? Since the Democrats including Obama took over the budget in 2007 spending has spiraled out of control and the deficits have been the worst in modern times. They are still 50% higher than the worst Bush/Republican deficits almost four times what they handed over to Obama and the Democrats.
The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook. Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2 Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/ On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
Actually, we have a revenue problem with all the overseas tax shelters in which wealthy elites have close to $40 trillion in untaxed resources. One reform proposed by President Obama is as follows: Obama proposes 14 percent tax on U.S. companies' untaxed foreign earnings Source: Reuters President Barack Obama's fiscal 2016 budget would impose a one-time 14 percent tax on some $2 trillion of accumulated U.S. corporate profits earned abroad and set up a 19 percent tax on future foreign earnings, a White House official said on Sunday. Revenues from the one-time tax be used to fund infrastructure projects and fill a projected shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. ... "This transition tax would mean that companies have to pay U.S. tax right now on the $2 trillion they already have overseas, rather than being able to delay paying any U.S. tax indefinitely," a White House official said. "Unlike a voluntary repatriation holiday, which the president opposes and which would lose revenue, the presidentÂ’s proposed transition tax is a one-time, mandatory tax on previously untaxed foreign earnings, regardless of whether the earnings are repatriated." Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-proposes-14-percent-tax-141611282.html It's a start. But the better move is to close all overseas tax shelters.
Then make it more attractive to invest it here. DOA and stupid and an wealth grab on his part, the US Government has no claim on that money nor right to it just because it is there. Change the tax code to make it more attractive to put it to work here.
But lots of incentive to leave the US and incorporate in foreign countries. It is a world-wide economy, to try and isolate US Citizens from participating just so you can grab more of their money is folly.
Down from what? Who cares, necessary government spending is not tied to GDP. In a growing economy that rate should be falling. In 2007 the government spent $2.7 T, The Democrats including Obama raised that to $3.5T, $800B in just two years. Obama wants to raise that to $4T, $1.3B higher than just 8 years ago. What is they justification for the federal government spending $1.3T more than in 2007? in $1,000's 2001 $1,862,846 2002 $2,010,894 2003 $2,159,899 2004 $2,292,841 2005 $2,471,957 2006 $2,655,050 2007 $2,728,686 $16,182,173 2008 2,982,544 2009 3,517,677 2010 3,457,079 2011 3,603,059 2012 3,537,127 2013 3,454,000 2014 3,504,000 $24,055,486 And Obama wants to increase it to $4,000,000,000. Still a deficit higher than the worst Bush/Republican deficit after the 2000/2001 recession and the deficits approaching $1,000,000,000 long term under his plan. Care to justify that?
Your numbers are off a bit, now that FY2014 is over the actual deficit for FY2014 was $1,085,887,854,036.50 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/de...tYear=2013&endMonth=09&endDay=30&endYear=2014 The government is out of control.
Maybe, but it has nothing to do with "religious interference" and everything to do with the fact the economy is so complicated it cannot be easily modeled or studied. Its a highly dynamic system with many variables and relationships, many of which are unknown. People have tried to find the optimal role of government in an economy for centuries, people including Keynes built their entire career trying to answer that question, none have. But we do know that governments are corrupting, all governments drift toward corruption and totalitarianism. Even if a higher level of government control and interference (and that's what government spending is) is better economically, its not worth the resulting corruption and collapse.
