Dang Dubya' not so fast you are making fools of a lot of folks!!

[dude1394]

So dubya pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2009 (I think) Looks like he's on a pace to do it about ....oh 3 years earlier.

JUST think how much faster the budget would have been balanced if we had raised taxes per the democrat economic strategy.

budget

Evidence continues to mount suggesting that the U.S. budget deficit is falling significantly below earlier projections. With it, the bear camp on the economy and the markets is losing a major component of its case, which has depended greatly upon the risks associated with the very large U.S. trade and budget deficits. The decline in the budget deficit is good news for the U.S. economy and its financial markets, as it is reducing the "crowding out" effects that stem from Uncle Sam's absorption of capital from the private sector.

It now looks likely that the U.S. budget deficit will fall by as much as $100 billion or more in the current fiscal year compared to fiscal 2004 when the deficit reached a record $412 billion.

How can we be so sure? Well, the fiscal year is already three-quarters complete and the deficit is running $76 billion below where it was in the same period a year earlier. Moreover, in an important validation of recent budget trends, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, said in its monthly budget review released on July 7 that the 2005 deficit will be significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion. Private forecasts are increasingly moving toward these tallies, with many now forecasting a deficit below $300 billion.
Deficit Reaching Bush Goal Much Earlier
A continuation of the recent trend would put the deficit for next year at $250 billion to $275 billion, which would represent a near halving of the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Reaching such a target would give a lift to President Bush, who has pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

----
Taxes Flowing Into the Treasury
The main cause of the brighter budget picture is a surge in tax receipts.

According to the CBO, individual income tax receipts accounted for more than half of the revenue growth seen in the first nine months of the current fiscal year, increasing $105 billion, or about 18% above the same period a year earlier. About two-thirds of this increase, the CBO states, resulted from higher receipts from nonwithheld taxes, most of which were recorded in April and May when many taxpayers filed income tax returns for 2004.

----




For the current fiscal year, a deficit of under $360 billion would put it at just under 3% of GDP, a level widely seen as acceptable throughout the industrialized world, particularly in Europe, where members of the European Monetary Union, or EMU, are required to keep their deficits below 3% of GDP. (Several EU countries, including Germany, have seen their deficits rise above 3% of GDP, but have been able to skirt hefty fines scheduled in accordance with rules regarding the EMU.)

[u2sarajevo]

......... I sit here and wait for mavdog to attempt to trivialize this..... or disprove it, or give credit to someone else. (this forum is soooooo predictable)

No matter what he says, good news and glad to hear it.

[dude1394]

There most definitely will be a moving of the goalpost. A "yes but".

[dude1394]

Just think how much better the economy would be without those tax cuts.



And what does Paul Krugman of the old york times write...

krugman

"In other words, we're still deep in the fiscal quagmire, with federal revenues far below what's needed to pay for federal programs. And we won't get out of that quagmire until a future president admits that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake, and must be reversed."

And THIS guy is the best that the democrats can trot out there?

[Mavdog]

It is very good news that the historic deficits are decreasing. It is however not the result of what should have been done- reduced federal expenditures.

It is akin to when a person is pummeled, becoming black and blue, and after it's over says "wow, that feels really good now that it's stopped".

[dude1394]

Hmm....then was is it the result of? And why do you care what it's the result of anyway? Your party wants to raise taxes so that they can....cough...cut spending?

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
......... I sit here and wait for mavdog to attempt to trivialize this..... or disprove it, or give credit to someone else. (this forum is soooooo predictable)

No matter what he says, good news and glad to hear it.

Sadly...U2 nails the dork spot on.

[Drbio]

Unqualified good news. Period.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Hmm....then was is it the result of?

it appears it is due to increased revenues above projections. That's called a surprise.

And why do you care what it's the result of anyway?

what? we should just aimlessly hope for a result that is favorable? ridiculous.

Your party wants to raise taxes so that they can....cough...cut spending?

I'm not aware of any proposals by either party to "raise taxes". The inequitable tax cuts have added the tax burden on middle income Americans, and the load should be better distributed. Care to show who is advocating raising taxes?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio

Sadly...U2 nails the dork spot on.

yep, "predictable" is true when it comes to some posters...

[madape]

It's clear that the tax cuts that Democrats (including Mavdog) have wailed about for years have been, in fact, much more successful than even the staunchest supply siders would have expected.

I will side with Mavdog on one point though, it really is time to cut expenditures. On that thought, it really would be nice to get Bush's social security bill through Congress.

[Rhylan]

Originally posted by: Mavdog


it appears it is due to increased revenues above projections. That's called a surprise.

So, it's only okay if it's a direct result of some piece of your master plan? Stop to think Mavdog.. additional tax revenues come from additional TAXES. Now, how is it that there ended up being more taxable income than was projected? Could it be.. ECONOMIC GROWTH ABOVE PROJECTIONS?

Seriously, this is ridiculous. Simple fact is, the economy grew faster than predicted. How is this bad?

I'm not aware of any proposals by either party to "raise taxes". The inequitable tax cuts have added the tax burden on middle income Americans, and the load should be better distributed. Care to show who is advocating raising taxes?

This is crap, Mavdog. Nobody's taxes went UP in 2003. Almost everybody's went down. The rich still pay a higher percentage of income. 2003 cuts more evenly distributed the burden by simply cutting everyone's taxes, and cutting the higher brackets a bit more, because they were unfairly high.

Explain to me how this is bad, please.

Oh, and by the way... more logic for you. If Bush lowered taxes in 2003, and some Democrats are STILL complaining about some of the tax cuts, doesn't that implicity advocate raising them back to pre-2003 levels? How can you complain about the higher brackets' tax rate and say they're unfairly low, yet claim to not be supporting a raise in those same rates?

Are you saying, "Bush was dumb, Bush was bad, Bush was unfair, he lowered taxes too much, but I don't want to raise them. I think he's wrong, but I don't think it needs to be changed." Surely this isn't what you're saying.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
It's clear that the tax cuts that Democrats (including Mavdog) have wailed about for years have been, in fact, much more successful than even the staunchest supply siders would have expected.

I will side with Mavdog on one point though, it really is time to cut expenditures. On that thought, it really would be nice to get Bush's social security bill through Congress.

why do you believe that the SS reform as proposed by Bush will help, rather than hurt, the goal of a balanced budget?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Rhylan

So, it's only okay if it's a direct result of some piece of your master plan? Stop to think Mavdog.. additional tax revenues come from additional TAXES. Now, how is it that there ended up being more taxable income than was projected? Could it be.. ECONOMIC GROWTH ABOVE PROJECTIONS?

Seriously, this is ridiculous. Simple fact is, the economy grew faster than predicted. How is this bad?

no, the economy didn't grow faster than predicted, the tax reseipts grew faster than predicted, There is a difference in the two, the receipts increased due to taxpayers realizing non-wage income which it appears was a consequence of these taxpayers selling assets. These could have been gains in stocks, and also gains in other vehicles like investment property which has been sizzling hot.

I'm not aware of any proposals by either party to "raise taxes". The inequitable tax cuts have added the tax burden on middle income Americans, and the load should be better distributed. Care to show who is advocating raising taxes?

This is crap, Mavdog. Nobody's taxes went UP in 2003. Almost everybody's went down. The rich still pay a higher percentage of income. 2003 cuts more evenly distributed the burden by simply cutting everyone's taxes, and cutting the higher brackets a bit more, because they were unfairly high.

Explain to me how this is bad, please.

The tax cuts lessened the burden on higher income taxpayers while it increased the percentage of the tax burden on the middle income taxpayers. that is bad, at least for those in the middle income tax brackets, and it is bad for America.

Oh, and by the way... more logic for you. If Bush lowered taxes in 2003, and some Democrats are STILL complaining about some of the tax cuts, doesn't that implicity advocate raising them back to pre-2003 levels? How can you complain about the higher brackets' tax rate and say they're unfairly low, yet claim to not be supporting a raise in those same rates?

Are you saying, "Bush was dumb, Bush was bad, Bush was unfair, he lowered taxes too much, but I don't want to raise them. I think he's wrong, but I don't think it needs to be changed." Surely this isn't what you're saying.

no, that is not what I am advocating. I want to return to the pre-tax cut levels, especially for the higher brackets, and if that produces a higher tax rate for upper income Americans sobeit.

BTW I do not in any way believe that Bush "was dumb". He is unfair tho.

[FishForLunch]

Are the Republicans also joining with the democrats in spending our money like there is no tomorrow. I am beginning to dislike all politicians.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
yep, "predictable" is true when it comes to some posters...

Boy you've got that rigth mavie..

Pot--Kettle--Kettle--Pot...

[dude1394]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog
[quote]
Originally posted by: Rhylan

Originally posted by: Mavdog


BTW I do not in any way believe that Bush "was dumb". He is unfair tho.

How in the world was he "unfair" when he made the tax code MORE progressive.

More progressive you know, higher income people pay MORE taxes as a percentage of the guvment than before.

The democrats can't even back their own party philosophy because of hatred. Good grief.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Are the Republicans also joining with the democrats in spending our money like there is no tomorrow. I am beginning to dislike all politicians.

Actually...Dubya has put out there a pretty good budget this year I believe. The only quibbling will be the off-budget spending for the WOT. However this is pretty traditionally off-budget.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394
[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: Rhylan

How in the world was he "unfair" when he made the tax code MORE progressive.

More progressive you know, higher income people pay MORE taxes as a percentage of the guvment than before.

The democrats can't even back their own party philosophy because of hatred. Good grief.

I don't know where you get your info that the tax cuts produced a more progressive tax code, here's what the CBO said:

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

[dude1394]

Oh I don't know....Granted it's a year old and I don't know what's up this year. But in my laymans understanding the increase of more people not paying any taxes as well as the 10% bracket(I think) caused when it was created a more progressive system. I don't know what the pie chart looks like now.

entrepenaur


Tax Cut Myths Debunked by CBO

From the Congressional Joint Economic Committee:

"A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report produced at the request of Congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners while decreasing the tax share of lower- and middle-income groups. The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014, shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, with the top 5 percent of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes.

Highlights:

* As a result of the tax cuts since 2001, all taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts.

* While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell.

* The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pays 31.6% of all income taxes, the top 5% pays 51.4%, the top 10% pays 63.5%, and the top 20% of income earners pays 78.4% of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes.

* Some analysts cite total effective federal tax rates, as opposed to effective income tax rates, as the best measure of the effects of the tax cuts across income groups. This method can be misleading because it measures the burden of payroll taxes without accounting for the highly progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits to which payroll taxes are linked."

[Mavdog]

It's funny to read the phrase "tax increase" used when there is any talk of ending the Bush tax plan.

It's analogous to a retail store who took a markdown. after the sale is over, it returns to regular price. is it a price uincrease? no.

that is what should be done to the tax cuts. back to regular price.

the yearly debt service in 4 years is going to double, and will be over $300B.

[dude1394]

If the tax plan had been for a week, I'd agree with you. But if the retail store has a mark-down for 4 years and then raises his prices "back", I think his customers will say price increase, no?

And since the top tax rate at one time was 70% or so, by your definition there never can be another tax increase until it gets back up to 71%.

[Rhylan]

Mavdog, I was going to respond to your response, but I just can't bring myself to do it. If you can't even admit that wanting to see certain tax rates go UP from their PRESENT levels constitutes desiring an INCREASE... well, you're just not worth debating with.

I shall exit the political forum.

Scoreboard.

[Drbio]

Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!!!!! !Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!!!! !!Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!!! !!!Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!!!!!!Retreat!!!!!! !!!!Retreat!!!!!!!!!!


(not a shot at Rhylan who is correct here, but rather the dork he is trying to educate)....you cannot teach the pathologically stupid though Rhylan....but I'll give you an A+ for effort.

[dude1394]

Dang the trade deficit as well?

-------------
This might have been written for mavie.

instapundit

SHRINKING DEFICITS: The trade deficit is down:

And so is the budget deficit:

Hmm. Weren't people telling us just recently that the budget deficit was growing because wealthy taxpayers were paying less? Apparently they were in error.

[Mavdog]

The trade deficit seems to be on a positive trend, aided by the weaker dollar. There's much talk about the Chinese allowing the yuan to float (currently it's pegged to the dollar) and if that were to come to pass it would help shrink the trade deficit. The only concern that I can see in the trade deficit is that America isn't exporting much finished goods other than planes. the issues with the manufacturing sector are well known and it's anybody's guess if that negative trend will reverse itself.

Is the trade deficit an item that the WH can affect? probably not, unless they want to become protectionist, and I doubt that would happen. Some have opined that the decrease in the value of the dollar was encouraged by the administration to help the competitiveness of the american products (remember Snow's comments of '04). That's a very touchy issue as it affects our relations with other countries and their currencies.

As far as the tax receipts, note that the article mentioned an increase in corporate tax collections and also the mention that "Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers", which is (as I mentioned above) LT gains being realized. Those are non-recurring income events.

The federal budget deficit is an issue going forward that will take a larger and larger amount to service the debt it creates. The temporary tax cut of the Bush plan, coupled with the rise in expenditures, is making that situation worse.

That is of course a seperate issue of how the temporary tax cuts were apportioned. My beef with the cuts is how they were apportioned as they benefitted the upper income taxpayers more than the middle or lower income taxpayers.