Taxes on Corp. profits help fuel $200 B in deficit reduction

More than $200 Billion in deficit reduction actually

from JoeUser Forums

While some whined and moaned that deficits would eat our economy alive and those deficits have been creating problems that will never be removed -- at least not without massive increases in taxes, as promised by the Democrats if they gain control of the House or Senate -- from burdening our current working generation and those in the future, the economy that "couldn't" under the Idiot in the Whitehouse's leadership (or that of his Neocon friends) "HAS" and continues TO surpass even the best expectations.

We've been told by the media, and by naysayers that the so-called economic leadership, and fiscal management by George W. Bush is a joke, and that the deficits we are creating are evil, evil, evil.  Ooops, it seems that the deficit continues to shrink thanks to revenues that continue to come in from places that the naysayers just never expected it to come from.

You see, as usual, the naysayers have relied on the best estimates -- actually the most fiscally conservative -- of the CBO or whatever other forecasters can be used to show the gloomiest outlook for the future.  Instead of looking at things realistically, they put on the gloomy goggles, look into the crystal balls, and declare that we'll never get the revenue we should, never collect all of the taxes we should, and will continue to have higher spending levels than we should which all adds up to bigger deficits.

Except that hasn't happened.  We've had higher revenue coming in than we thought we would, and those higher revenues are continuing to show that the government is still taking in more than it needs to, or at least that it is headed in the opposite direction from deficit spending.

The next few years -- assuming that the Democrats don't upset the apple cart and wipe out the revenue producing tax cuts that Bush got through congress early in his first term -- should see us moving towards revenue surpluses again.  We should have enough money in the coffers to take care of our needs and have money left over to help pay down the national debt.  We may even have money to help shore up medicare and social security (which still badly need attention to keep them from destroying the economy as they could).

In anycase, the actual news report that fueled these comments by yours truly (Terpfan1980) can be found here: at Brietbart, via AP.

The Congressional Budget Office's latest estimate is $10 billion below CBO predictions issued in August and well below a July White House prediction of $296 billion.

The improving deficit picture _ Bush predicted a $423 billion deficit in his February budget _ has been driven by better-than-expected tax receipts, especially from corporate profits, CBO said.

politics
4,378 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, just so you see the total numbers: the number now stands at $250 Billion.  Bush had estimated $496 Billion, so along the way the deficit has been cut by over $200 Billion.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.  In this case, it is a good thing they forget 1960s and 1980s.  So we can have the 2000s!
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm wondering how long it will be before the usual fools come and say our children will be paying off the interest forever.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
So you're saying that GW is doing a good job. That a $250 billion deficit is a good thing when he came into office with a surplus? Yep, as long as people keep spending and getting into debt up to their eyeballs everything is good. The thing is that at some point the economy will take a dive. We're already seeing people who are not able to pay their mortgages because of interest rates going up. Foreclosures are up. We are a debtor society, as a government and individually. That is not a good thing. The time always comes when you have to pay the piper.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is not a good thing. The time always comes when you have to pay the piper.


But not with the pepper. YOu are off target on your diatribe. Perhaps you would like to take my Government spending 101 course? On why the deficit appeared and how to get rid of it? (and there is enough crap for Bush in it as well, but not 100%).

Dr Guy, Friedman Economist.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Loca - you ever do any research on the evils of having too much money (as in surpluses) coming into the Government coffers?  It is a real problem, and it leads to several big negatives for the economy.

The best approach is one with the government taking in what it needs and no more, or one that lets the government take in almost what it needs and borrow a little so that those that are dependent upon the GUARANTEED income that the government's treasury bills generate will get that income.

I don't like seeing large deficits, but simply having a debt isn't a bad thing.  It's bad when your debt goes way beyond your ability to pay back the debt and the interest and other costs associated with the debt.  It is not bad to borrow enough money to take care of your needs (assuming you can afford the interest payment on the debt and assuming you can pay down that debt over time).

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just thinking on this a bit more and came up with some more questions and comments for Loca -  Loca, what percentage of the U.S. gdp would the current budget deficits equal?

What percentage of the actual U.S. budget would they represent?

Historically speaking, where do those percentages rank when compared to those of other administrations along the way - not just the current administration, not just the Clinton administration, or George H.W. Bush's, or Reagans, or Carters, but going back for a while?

Compare the numbers over time and realize just where the current budget deficit fits into the U.S. fiscal history and then tell us all again why these numbers are bad?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

For Loca's behalf (and anyone else interested), check the summary here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/06msr.pdf for some of the answers to the questions I raised above.  Over the 40 year historical average, Bush's budgets are well on target to bring the deficit to well under the historical average of 2.3% of gdp.  The current numbers are actually close to the historical average, and if things continue (as they should, assuming Democrats don't come in an screw up the economy with their plans to raise taxes and eliminate the Bush tax cuts), the numbers will get much better.

Given spending on items that were not planned on back when the cuts were enacted, it's pretty amazing that we're sitting here looking back and looking ahead and seeing our way towards a balanced budget.  This has happened despite continued pork barrel spending, despite spending on national emergencys, national disasters, and more.

Heaven help us, Democrats continue to tell us that the first thing they'll do if they get control is repeal Bush's tax cuts.  On the plus side, they likely will not have a veto proof majority *if* they win control of the House or Senate, and anything they try to do is going to get met with a Presidential veto about as soon as it hits Bush's desk, at least until he's out of the office.  After that, the next President will see the results of whatever damage a Democratic majority can try to accomplish (again, assuming that Democrats gain control), and they'll have to proceed very cautiously lest they get to enjoy a recession caused by an eagerness to make changes to the economy just for the sake of change.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock


Here is an interesting link if you want more info on the national debt which currently stands are $8 Trillion. So the news that we are adding $200 B less to the national debt is good but not even a tip off the iceberg of the national debt. There are also interesting charts that show how the national debt has grown in the last thirty years.

It cracks me up that Democrats were villified as the tax and spend party for years but the Republicans have proven that they can beat them. I really don't think the current Republicans are true conservatives at all.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

It cracks me up that Democrats were villified as the tax and spend party for years but the Republicans have proven that they can beat them. I really don't think the current Republicans are true conservatives at all.

In that you are right. At least in the spend part.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here is an interesting link if you want more info on the national debt which currently stands are $8 Trillion. So the news that we are adding $200 B less to the national debt is good but not even a tip off the iceberg of the national debt. There are also interesting charts that show how the national debt has grown in the last thirty years.

It cracks me up that Democrats were villified as the tax and spend party for years but the Republicans have proven that they can beat them. I really don't think the current Republicans are true conservatives at all.

I agree with most of what you say.

However, the US economy is around 8 trillion also.

Most people have debt greater than their yearly income. I.e. A person with a $50k income has a $200k house. That's 4 times their income.

I don't like deficits and am disgusted with the Republicans but I don't lose sleep over them either.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

However, the US economy is around 8 trillion also.

Most people have debt greater than their yearly income. I.e. A person with a $50k income has a $200k house. That's 4 times their income.

Exactly my point above.   The fact that we have a national debt isn't in and of itself bad,  nor is the amount of the actual debt.  If things were as Draginol points out -- where for many U.S. citizens, where the $200k (or more) mortgage is just the tip of the iceberg of say $300,000 or more in debt with credit cards, automobiles, etc. -- in the U.S. economy then I would be more concerned.

Having a national debt that isn't that far from the size of the U.S. economy in general tells me that we're borrowing at reasonable levels.  The chicken little crowd may not like it, and they probably especially don't like the fact that the liberal spending pattern is working well with conservatives at the helm, but too bad.  We spend what we need without breaking the U.S. economic engine with taxes that are too high to let people enjoy the fruits of their own labors.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
After Clinton left us wide open to attack with his pitiful policy of refering to terrorist attacks as criminal events, how much do you think 9/11 cost the US economy? Try 1 trillion dollars. Been to an airport lately - -thank you Bill CLinton. Of course Bush was responsible for Katrina also. He poured billions into these two events as he had to. By comparison, Bill was playing with Monica and referencing that he didn't have sex with that woman.