E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe latest monthly budget report from the Congressional Budget Office shows the deficit for first eight months of fiscal year 2012 was just a bit smaller than same period last year.
But revenues coming in to the Treasury continue to go up in a healthy way: a 28.5% increase in personal income tax revenues, compared to the same period last year.
One conclusion: even as debate rages in Washington over raising income tax rates and eliminating tax breaks, the federal government is seeing strong revenue growth -- with no increase in income tax rates and no elimination of tax breaks.
In fact, the tax package President Obama signed into law last December extended a variety of tax breaks and cut taxes by $374 billion for this calendar year.
But tempering the good news on revenue growth, here’s some perspective: While personal income tax revenues were up in the first eight months of FY 2012, they are still below where they were three years ago, before the recession fully hit.
So far this fiscal year, income tax revenues are at $702 billion, according to the CBO report. But in the same period back in fiscal year 2008, they stood at $769 billion.
Total revenues – including corporate tax, individual income tax, and Medicare and Social Security taxes -- are still 11 percent below where they were at the same point in fiscal year 2008. (The federal government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to the following September 30, so FY 2008 began in October 2007.)
Meanwhile, when CBO adjusts for special factors like prepayments of deposit insurance by banks, spending is up only one percent overall so far in the current fiscal year.
Worryingly, as in previous months, the fastest growing item of spending is interest payments on the debt – and that’s even with today’s extraordinarily low interest rates.
How much more revenue could be gained if just half of today’s unemployed were working?
A back-of-the-envelope estimate: If 7 million more people were working, and assuming each paid an average of $7,500 in federal taxes this year, that would be another $52.5 billion in annual revenue.
Leave a Comment:
And less spending on unemployment insurance (which workers pay into btw).
Job initiatives (infrastructure, even saving the auto industry) are sometimes more effective and cheaper ways to bring down the deficit (and slashing spending in a way that destroys jobs very counter productive at best or returning us to recession at worst)
Yeah, in three states employees pay "minimal' contributions according to the US DOL's website:
In the majority of States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on employers. (Three (3) States require minimal employee contributions.)
Somebody cue Feisty - I'm thinking the old gal is going to start applauding "Obama's" tax cuts.
Bev. what up? Please provide you opinion/explanation for the revenue rise. Oh and what is revenue in this context? Oh yeah - taxes.
Bev. how could it possibly be that in cutting tax rates he generated more revenue?
Big deal. As you folks always like to tell me, corporate taxes are just passed along to customers, anyway.
I suppose you think it would be better for employers to have the right just to arbitrarily throw employees out on the street with NO safety net, especially now, when there are no other jobs for those workers to move on to.
Or do you think that employers always behave compassionately and fairly towards their employees by dismissing them only for "just cause" and paying them severance? Don't make me laugh.
I'll give you another one. Maybe it's the million plus new jobs that were created last year, either because of or in spite of the stimulus. Same thing happened in my own state, but not because of anything Scott Walker has done. It's still not enough, but at least it's a start.
I guess the Bush Tax Cuts didn't work for Bush, but work for Obama.
The man is magic.
Of course, on the opposite side of the revenue side of the equation, there is the spending side. And it appears we're running about a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit for the year. Much more than the increased revenue stream can keep up with. Any chance that spending can be reduced, you know, like Paul Ryan and the GOP have a plan for doing?
Is there someway of pin pointing where the extra revenue is coming from? Where I live in the Pacific NW the stores are closing The restaurants are following, only the large chains are holding on. These are businesses that do not usually pay well. I `m assuming the businesses that fed retail and food must be down too as they were the ones eating and buying. Is there more growth in other parts of the country?
Scott Walker could walk on water, and Annie would be griping about how he couldn't swim.
Maybe, except that he can't. Can you? ;-)
Well, if not, then it must have been the stimulus.
So more jobs in your state AM, but of course it had nothing to do with Walker, only the stimulus.
Uh, ok, how about this: How many total jobs were there in Wisc, on 12/30/09? How many 12/30/10?
Oh and I can totally walk on water - about 50 feet at a time. See I get my jet ski going at about 65 mphs then get pitched off cause I'm doing something stupid/intentional and BAM I skip on top of the water. Sometimes it's a blast, some times it hurts like Anthony's Weiner in a death spiral.
Speaking of which AM - what do you make of his little conspiracy with the lovely [and VERY talented] Ginger Lee? He flat out coached he as to what to say to reporters/investigators.
Not good for the little peckerwood. Not good at all.
Thank god the Kochs are old. Unlikely their Anthony's will be causing them much trouble. Anymore.
Sure. This is pretty easy. Here are a few ideas. Whack the mole of defense spending for a while and see what that produces. Get the bejeebers out of Iraq, where more Americans were killed this week, and also Afghanistan. Stop buying planes the Pentagon doesn't want. End tax subsidies for oil companies. Tax the top 2 percent at the Clinton era tax rates. Raise the Social Security payroll tax by 1/2 percent. Stop all loans for small businesses. They don't need them anyway, according to all of you. Stop all job training programs immediately and make private businesses do it. No more bridges, roads, or other public works projects in red states funded with federal tax dollars. No federal funding for cancer research. No federal food inspection. No federal regulation of the air and water, but only in red states. No more emergency disaster assistance in red states. Stop maintaining national parks and forests and monuments in all red states. If you still want them, then YOU keep them up, and do it without raising taxes.
How am I doing so far? ;-)
How much more revenue could be gained if just half of today’s unemployed were working?
Interesting concept written in the article. Even with the lower rates courtesy Obama's tax cuts for the rich.
Hard to fathom how more workers paying lower rates can actually generate revenue. Hard to fathom how an increase in productivity can generate higher revenues. At least in the minds of liberals.
Anna - Please tell me why the top 2% should be taxed more. I'm very curious as to your reasoning.
Terrific! That gets the deficit down from $1.65 trillion to about $1.4 trillion. Nice job. You've got a ways to go yet though. May I suggest you focus on the entitlements? Or maybe confiscate the Koch brothers wealth, estimated at $14 billion - that will be enough to run the federal government for, ohh, about 33 hours.
Because she's not part of the 2%.
Vote yourself a raise - Vote Democratic/Union (same thing).
There they go yapping. how about your dept. if revenue is not the problem then pay off your dept. if we eleminate tax loopholes, reverse taxes back to where they were under clinton, reverse bush tax sudsidies, stop all wars and not kill medicare or medicaid is still the solution. and we're not even talking about the interest rate been payed on dept.
this is just like saying "hey i got a 3% raise at my job hence i don't more money."
What this is showing is that more jobs creates more tax revenue. That is not to say we don't need tax reforms, if for no other reason than fairness (e.g., tax evasion), but more importantly to keep our nation strong and to preserve the middle class and therefore democracy.
Not really, except that in Wisconsin the scheme is to balance the budget off revenues gained from taxing currently displaced workers who are forced to take jobs that pay less.
http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_beat/article_98606c30-4511-11e0-9f5e-001cc4c03286.html
This line of thought comes dangerously close to advocating for a slave class.
Huh? Did I say how much I would cut defense spending? And how about both wars? What about the taxes on the wealthy. I think you're sandbagging JoAnna. You know those things would help, and help a lot more than you're admitting to.
By the way, the Koch brothers' combined wealth, by the way, not to put too fine a point on it, is about $44 billion. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Note -- the increase is very minimal. Why this would cause anyone to conclude that Bush's tax cuts have been vindicated, or any other nonsense like Scott Walker having redeeming qualities is amazing. Jobs have slowly improved, albeit most are low-paying jobs at Mickey-D's... but don't forget all those "small business" owners, like doctors, lawyers, and investment bankers who file as individuals who are enjoying strong profits.
swamp -- 57% of tax evasion comes from those who self-report their income, not the W2 working class subjected to third-party reporting. Even Reagan had the good sense to increase the tax base (not rates, but base) by ending loopholes. Anyone trying to argue against loopholes is loopy.
JoAnna's right; I'm not part of the 2 percent, and I'm not particularly ashamed to admit it because wealth is not my main raison d'etre. But even if I was, I would still support that, as do a lot of those who ARE in that bracket, including Warren Buffett. Why? Because they're not as petty as you are, and they realize that they are the group that benefited most from Bush's tax cuts, seeing their personal wealth skyrocket over the past decade. They're not giving it up in job creation, as we were promised they would do, so let them give it up in taxes. Or don't you think those who benefit should be the ones who pay? Maybe you believe we should spread that burden out over everyone. Okay, then return everyone to the Clinton era tax rates. Done.
Oh, just cut out the whole "if you want more you have to work harder" crap, you right wing pig.
This here is libbie land. In Libbie land all are equal and therefore entitled to equal pay, no matter what their life, educational, or professional choices might have been.
In fact, around here you don't even have to be from here to get in on the action.
The rich owe the poor more, so let's not even go there. Just a given.
It really is sad that libbie land is going the way of other great progressive Nations, like Greece, Spain, or my favorite nation state, California.
Hello, bail us out. It's the only right, fair and compassionate thing to do. :)
Well, now who's sandbagging? You want to solve the problem, you better plug in some real numbers sister, else we'll think your pulling an Obama on us.
Great news! Confiscating their wealth will now run the federal government for about 100 hours.
You sure know a lot about the Koch brothers. What's their favorite color?
Correction - Anyone arguing againstending loopholes is loopy, which is the entire GOP/TP. The 51% not paying taxes are the richest 2% who are self-employed/business owners using write-offs, and the 1% using tax shelters. This business of blaming it on the poor, who's earnings are so pitiful as to generate nothing even at a 100% rate is not only incorrect but idiotic.
Corporations like Exxon Mobil or GE are another example, and NO, paying their damn taxes is not why they off-shore, nor an acceptable excuse for turning a blind eye to it. Gagh I hate the right-wing fallacious argumentation.
Yp AM they are so magnanimous. So how come they don't just pay more on their own?
What the matter the will only do it is compelled to do so?
AM you know theirs is a insignificant minority, far outside the real of normal rich folk. Cause we [the vaunted $250k and up club]are all greedy bastards after all.
I hear the Koch brothers are charitable gents. What's $44 billion get you?
And I know, I know, the Koch brothers favorite color is GREEN. Either that, or mauve.
Anna Molly said: JoAnna's right; I'm not part of the 2 percent, and I'm not particularly ashamed to admit it because wealth is not my main raison d'etre. But even if I was, I would still support that, as do a lot of those who ARE in that bracket, including Warren Buffett. Why? Because they're not as petty as you are, and they realize that they are the group that benefited most from Bush's tax cuts, seeing their personal wealth skyrocket over the past decade. They're not giving it up in job creation, as we were promised they would do, so let them give it up in taxes. Or don't you think those who benefit should be the ones who pay? Maybe you believe we should spread that burden out over everyone. Okay, then return everyone to the Clinton era tax rates. Done.
Why? Because they're not as petty as you are
Why? Because they're not as petty as you are
Why? Because they're not as petty as you are
Why? Because they're not as petty as you are
Tell me Anna - why do you make discussions personal attacks? I asked a simple question. It wasn't a personal attack. You made the statement so I was curious about it. Now, you turn this into a pissing contest. So now I'm even more curious. What drives this in you. I've always been reasonable in my responses. I'm not this far right crazy fascist that needs to cut everyone on the left down. Well in Carrot Top in drag's case... maybe. But it seems you are always so defensive and hostile. Is this a left thing?
If you believe that the top 2% needs to pay more in taxes, then you would also agree that the bottom 51% that don't pay any taxes, pay their fair share too, correct? Or isn't it about fairness? It's all about those that achieve the most should support the others... Which is it?
It's for the same reason Weiner behaves badly. The Libs don't realize they are even doing the act, it's just so natural, comfortable and acceptable to them. It's part of them. It is them. Yeah, kind of Zen, but not in a good way.
Maybe I should ask AM for an apology?
Swampfox, it doesn't matter if it would make a dent in the deficit to the liberals. They aren't about fixing the deficit. They are about class warfare. To them the rich got that way from stealing it from the middleclass and the poor. So, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS as the queen of hearts would say. If you notice, they always go after the oil companies, large corporations and anyone that actually works to make money. They somehow think money is an entitlement that should be given from those that have, to those that havenot. Even if the havenot's don't do a flipping thing to deserve it. We can't let them starve... even if they won't work for anything. It's a warped sense of entitlement that has driven the left for years. The democrats have capitalized on it to create a huge voting block. We all know it, it's not a secret but the liberals keep on beating the class warfare drum.
Raising the tax rates on the upper 2% to Clinton era levels brings in around $70 billion a year. That's static scoring, so it will probably be less as the 2% change their behavior to shelter themselves. So at best it would cover about 4% of the current deficit. Not insignificant, but it doesn't solve the problem either.
That's kind of more where it is. The Libs talk about it so much, but it really isn't that significant of a contribution to solve the deficit issue. Like the Death Tax, it's more about class warfare than it is about the revenue.
Joanna - you ARE a hoot! LOL
LoL Too easy. Red. Yours?
In your opinion, you have; in mine, you haven't. You default to the same old, same old right-wing platitudes. But I apologize. That petty comment was beneath me. Now, then, respond to my point. The top 2 percent, when polled, agree they could and should pay more. Why do you disagree with that?
And what's this if not a personal attack? I'm not defensive or particularly hostile, although I may be a bit impatient with people who keep saying the same things over and over again, facts notwithstanding. But trying to ascribe my personal shortcomings, as you describe them, to all liberals is nothing more than right-wing stereotyping.
All liberals are not alike, just like you claim all conservatives are not alike. Don't blame others for what I say and do.
The bottom 51 percent shouldn't have to pay any more on the same theory that you can't get any blood out of a turnip. The top 2 percent, in their ever-increasing lust for more and more, have already squeezed the bottom 51 percent so hard that they have no more to give.
If you try to squeeze more out of the bottom 51 percent, then just who does the top 2 percent think will be able to afford the things they say they will make and sell as soon as there's some demand for it, which there won't be until there are some jobs, which there won't be until there's some demand, and so on and so on ....
Brianb and Joanna,
I'll tell you why the top 2% should have their tax rates increased, it's called relatively simply economics. As David Stockton recently opined (in case you don't know who he is, he was Reagan's [that's President Ronald Reagan] Director of the Office of Budget and Management) in an op-ed piece for the NY Times entitled "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse" wherein he asserts that "my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. Economy".
Central to that assertion was a concept that even the most strident, partisan observer could easily grasp. The marginal propensity to consume of the lower classes is much higher than the rich. As such more economic activity is generated if income is not allowed to massively accumulate to the top. Said another way, if the top 2% want to acquire something, purchase a particular service, etc., they've got the wherewithall AND THEY'VE MOST LIKELY ALREADY DONE SO! That's why they're continuing to sit on all that cash. Now, if there was a tax break given to the lower to middle classes, as Stockton pointed out, there's a much higher propensity to actually utilize the additional cash they've realized.
As an example, if the top 2% want their car fixed or to buy a new (or God forbid, used) car, they've currently got the resources to do so and have most likely done so. However, the lower to middle class most likely have been holding off on getting that fixed, waiting until they've paid something else off, etc. But if they've got the additional resources (meaning more money in their paycheck), they go out to a mechanic and get that fixed (or buy the used car, in my example). The repair shop and/or car dealership is seeing an uptick in sales, so they go out and hire an additional mechanic or sales person. Those people are now employed (albeit at the lower end of the economic strata) but they're going to go out and consume. It's what drives our economy. As Stockton pointed out, it's really not rocket science.
So continue to blather on about how the top 2% need more tax breaks or that they are the cause of all the jobs. That's ludicrous in the extreme. The top 2% (which probably own the repair shop or car dealership [and great for them, by the way!!] won't expand until they see an increase in demand. That the ONLY WAY there's going to be an increase in demand, is if potential customers (lower to middle class) have the money to spend on their goods and services. Take a read of the attached, and then employ some critical thinking. It'll do you a world of good.
http://politicaltruths.info/2011/01/03/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-economyndashmarketwatch-p2-tcot-teaparty-2.aspx
Maybe you should, but you won't get it. I've already apologized to Brianb. I've told you before I don't need your five-cent psychobabble analysis. Trying to hang Weiner on me won't fly, either. You know better than that. Or do you think I don't remember that you were FOR him until you were against him? Before you start lecturing me about Weiner, go back and read your very first post on that subject, before you knew for sure which way the wind was blowing.
And they are free to do so. They can make their check out to the IRS, and send it to them. Heros, those 2%-ers, heros [I'm tearing up here]. They should get a medal (one that doesn't cost too much to make).
So when we take the Koch's money, I think we should confiscate George Soro's money as well, that'd add about another 9 billion to the pot of money we are taking away from people.
Oh I'm not against the Weiner AM. Not at all. I want him just where he's at, in Congress, making his little squeaky voice rants against the GOP on the House floor. Tony is the poster child of the Democrats now AM. Everytime he goes off on his tirades, we'll be there to remind everyone that the Weiner likes to have phone sex with 20-somethings and porn stars, and when caught, he lies about it. Real credible guy, that Tony Weiner.
Oh and AM, he's your next sign.
First Timer: So continue to blather on about how the top 2% need more tax breaks or that they are the cause of all the jobs. That's ludicrous in the extreme. The top 2% (which probably own the repair shop or car dealership [and great for them, by the way!!] won't expand until they see an increase in demand.
I'm not the one blathering about the fact that they need more tax breaks. I believe the top 2% can fend for themselves. What I don't believe is that they should give more money to the federal government on a percentage basis than anyone else. They earn more, therefore they do pay more. I know some rich people that pay two to three times my annual salary in taxes. They never complain about it because they are set up to earn millions. Big deal. I am not of the Robin Hood mentality like most liberals are. No matter what the liberals say about the rich paying their fair share... nothing but total surrender would satisfy the class warfare crowd. It's the class warfare that I am against. And in order to take a stand on it, I justify my beliefs by knowing the rich DO pay more. In the land of liberals, no amount of money paid by the rich would satisfy their lust for their version of equality.
Anna,
Cost savings - 131 billion
That would be zero - they want them. Regardless the F-22 program has been cancelled and the F-35 is not - still trying to work out the orders.
Bottom line - we are not making F-15s and F-16s any more
Savings -0-
Cost savings - 2 billion
Additional revenue -0-.
They don't pay through a HR department. In this buisness environment no one is taking a risk when the Dems are too incompetent to even come up with a budget. That's reality.
I didn't think SS was for the general fund.
cost savings -0-
Loans shouldn't cost money. I thought Obama fixed that with FinRef right?
cost savings -0-
That was the stimulus, has more been appropriated ... off the books?
cost savings -0-
Fine. But obviously if red states don't reeive any benefit they shouldn't have to the federal government.
Make it permanent - that's what the red states want right.
cost saving -0- (Actually a big net loss to feds - savings for the staes)
So JoAnna's number was pretty good, huh.
BTW - Taxing the top 2% - 100% - taking everything - would only cover 1/2 of Obama's defecit this year. But again that never pay their "fair" share. Not even millionaire president's like Obama.
Another classic line from Anna Molly, oh my golly:
"trynig to hang Weiner on me won't fly, ether."
Now who doesn't love a good chick fight? After three days of solid dick talk, I for one appreciate some girl on girl action.
Thank you so much ladies. Particularly you AM, you are having a rough time of it, are badly outnumbered [a first here at First Read, but again these are trying times for libbies] yet you keep trying to put up the good fight.
Fight the power AM, fight the power.
Oh and speaking of fighting the power - is this really going to be, for the first time in history, a thread with out at least one Bev. or Feisty comment?
Man, these must really be the times that try libbies souls.
Now where's the fun if all the libbies are going to run off and hide?
First timer - the bottom 47% of the workers in the country, the ones that pay 0% of the federal taxes, need to pay some amount of their income to support the government. They drive on the same roads, use the same bridges, afford the same homeland security benefits, and use the same government services, all for free, because they don't pay one dime of their income to support these things. When Liberals ask for more money for the government, the bottom 47%-ers say "Sure, no skin off my knees". By having the bottom 47% pay even a tiny percentage of their income to the federal government, they'll think twice when the Liberal starts screeching for more federal money, and they may just vote a little different too.
Joe. The employer pays nothing. In the end all revenue is comes from the consumer.
Anna Molly said:
The bottom 51 percent shouldn't have to pay any more on the same theory that you can't get any blood out of a turnip. The top 2 percent, in their ever-increasing lust for more and more, have already squeezed the bottom 51 percent so hard that they have no more to give.
If you try to squeeze more out of the bottom 51 percent, then just who does the top 2 percent think will be able to afford the things they say they will make and sell as soon as there's some demand for it, which there won't be until there are some jobs, which there won't be until there's some demand, and so on and so on ....
Who said anything about squeezing more out of the bottom 51%? I'm not talking about raising rates on them... Let's start taxing them period. For goodness sakes let's stop giving them earned income credit. That's taxing in the negative. Since there are a whole lot more of them than the top 2% they should pay their fair share as well. Don't they benefit from the services of the federal government? Don't they share in the same protections? Don't they use the interstate highways? Don't they benefit from what the system has to offer? Why should they not pay taxes and in a lot of cases get free money FROM the government?
Do you see the absurdity in this? Aren't you getting my meaning? Just because people work harder to earn more, they only share in the same protections offered by the federal government. It's not a privledge to be rich. It took hard work and smart thinking to be that way. For the federal government to take more exponentually because of their hard work is simple larceny... in many cases it's grand larceny. And liberals far and wide think it's justified.
As far as the rich being polled that they would pay more... I don't see any of them rushing to their local federal treasury office and handing dollars over. Everyone knows that the taxation system is a compliance issue. Not everyone complies (shall I give the list of Obama's cabinet that hasn't complied?). Polls are polls... reality is a different thing all together.
@ JoAnna: That's not exactly what you were saying originally, but that's okay. I've been reminded by this whole thing that there is no way for me to tell what you really believe about anything.
You do yourself a disservice by trying to pin Weiner on me, though. Really you do. You know that I have never made a comment out here that would suggest that I support men of Weiner's age, and especially in his position, following young women on Twitter or Facebook, or anywhere else, not to mention having cybersex or phone sex with them. I never condoned his lying and never said he should stay in Congress merely because he was a good Congressman. I don't think placing himself in such an easily compromised position and then lying repeatedly about something he claims was not important in the first place qualifies as good judgment.
I'm not "hip" enough to know what you mean by "next sign." I'll just assume the personal insult. See you later.
swamp & co, - First off, 51% is not correct--most sources state 47% or even 45%. Second, read up on it:
"Do the poor really pay no taxes?" - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/do_the_poor_really_pay_no_taxe.html
"Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer." - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
"Who Pays No Income Tax? That’s The Wrong Question" - http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/05/05/who-pays-no-income-tax-thats-the-wrong-question/
There was a really good article, I think it was Forbes, but can't find it now. In any event, one point often made in these articles is that the rich do not have to contribute as much to Social Security and Medicare in FICA with-holdings, so they do not get the resulting tax credit.
I would like to see ALL tax credits abolished, including the $1,000 per child write-off -- IF we can all enjoy lower tax rates as a result. Credits are just "redistribution of wealth" in an attempt to manipulate the market, or worse reward certain lifestyle choices. But as soon as write-offs are introduced, it will be abused--by everyone.
Okay, can we talk about job creation now?
A back-of-the-envelope estimate: If 7 million more people were working, and assuming each paid an average of $7,500 in federal taxes this year, that would be another $52.5 billion in annual revenue.
Here's another quick back-of-the-envelope estimat.... In 2007 there were an estimated 138 million tax payers. Of that 47% paid no federal income tax. Assume those tax payers had an average house hold income of the US at about $50,000 and paid just 5% income tax to the federal government (that's $2500 or $48/week). This would generate $162 Billion in additional revenue. That's more than twice the amount it costs in the reduced taxes for the top 2% ($70 billion/ year).
The point being, even if you reformed the tax code to make the bottom 1/2 of the country pay something in taxes, and taxed the top 2% at Clinton level tax rates, that only makes up $232 billion of a deficit of $1.5 trillion. You can even take the spending or both wars out estimated to be at $111 billion/year and now you still have a deficit of $1.2 trillion per year. The point being, this country doesn't have a revenue problem, its a spending problem.
So is she going to hang the Weiner, or is she going to pin the Weiner?
Inquiring minds, that reside perpetually in the gutter, need to know.
Don't be ridiculous. Many people get rich through cheating, gouging, and dirty tricks. My own profession is constantly accused of that. And Wall Street also comes immediately to mind. They're nothing but parasites off other people's money to begin with, but if ever there was grand larceny, the past few years surely qualify. A lot of people didn't do anything to earn what they have, they merely inherited it. And lot of people work very hard and never become rich. Nowadays people work multiple jobs, but mainly out of desperation, and not because they entertain any realistic notion that they will become rich.
Listen Brianb: Don't try to tell me about it. My own assistant has to work two jobs just to own a home. She gets no tax breaks other than a home mortgage deduction. And your side would rather take that away from her, which is actually being proposed, than pay a dime more yourselves, even though you can afford it a darn sight more than she can. After reading what you repeatedly write, I'd say that just about sums you up. If that qualifies as a "personal attack," then I'd say, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Anna Molly
Where did you get your info that there was 1 million jobs created last year?
This is what the Bureau of Labor Statics say was the number of EMPLOYED people in 2010.
Jan---14842000
Dec---14485000
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
Put a check in Civilian Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS13000000.
Scroll down and click --Retrieve Data-- for chart.
Gee! That looks like a loss of 350,000 jobs.
True Patriot - I would like to see ALL tax credits abolished, including the $1,000 per child write-off -- IF we can all enjoy lower tax rates as a result. Credits are just "redistribution of wealth" in an attempt to manipulate the market, or worse reward certain lifestyle choices. But as soon as write-offs are introduced, it will be abused--by everyone
Holy cow! Finally... something we CAN agree on! Well said! About job creation?
OOOPS WRONG CHART.
Those above are UNEMPLOYED people. That's a 350,000 GAIN. Still not near 1 Million.
slodon -- I'm looking at lots of sources that would show about a 500,000 gain, but since you have BLS then I'll accept that. Somewhere just today or yesterday, I heard a million. For sake of argument, though, I'll accept the 350,000, number though, and at a federal tax burden averaging $7,500, it looks like a lot of additional revenue to me.
I'm confused...
All of the conservatives here only yesterday were assailing the President for not knowing what was going on. Are they now taking credit for the same policies that were in effect yesterday and praising the administrative foresight? So are the tax cuts now back to being the Bush tax cuts now that they are purported to work?
The true and larger point is that thee are many factors at work. No one of them is to be blamed or credited by itself. Conservative cheerleading notwithstanding.
OH MY GOD:
MS. WEINER IS PREGNANT.
What an outrageous little prick.
Go away. Go now. Never, ever come back you troll.
Hey, you’re right for once—that is a stupid saying. Did you really inject Anthony Weiner in this debate, seriously? How many times do I have to explain Red Herrings to you?
You are clearly describing Republicans. A Turnaround is when you take your opponent’s position -- But instead of making the originator look bad, you only look like a sixth grader repeating everything someone says – No you, NO you, NO YOU.
Come on, how can anyone take you guys seriously?
"How much more revenue could be gained if just half of today’s unemployed were working? A back-of-the-envelope estimate: If 7 million more people were working, and assuming each paid an average of $7,500 in federal taxes this year, that would be another $52.5 billion in annual revenue."
That $52.5 Billion increase would be a tiny fraction of the Deficits that Obama is racking up (about $1.4 Trillion per year for the last 3 years), so it's obvious that we can't 'grow' ourselves out of the debt crisis and the only REAL solution to our Deficit problems is to CUT SPENDING.
Wow, great news. Just think of how much more revenue there would be with FY2000 tax rates. Just sayin'.
Poor Indy Lib - just can't grasp it.
Listen, increasing tax rates does not mean increased tax revenues. Google up what has happened in the progressive paradise that is Oregon. They raised rates and bam, got less revenue.
YOu want more actual revenue mindlessly jacking up rates is not you answer.
Funny part is you got states like NY that get an incredible amount of tax income from only a very small number of households. And rich folk have the ability, particularly now days to live [read: state of residency for tax purposed] anywhere they want.
Hello Texas. Howdy Nevada. By by Cali, NY. NJ, ILL.
Naa- I like your idea better. Let's just tax the living crap out of everybody. That ought to do wonders for tax revenues, right Indy? Sure it will.
I got a real funny story about some of the expatriate tax returns I used to do in the '80 for OXY petroleum oil workers who worked in Peru. I'll save it, but let just say they tried to jack up rates and lost 100% of the revenue. Stupid government, dumber congress critters who can't draft a decent tax code to save their lives.
Anna Molly
kudos you Anna, always the smartest person in the room. I enjoyed your posts.
swamp -- Because you think so therefore it is true? We may all have an equal right to an opinion, but that does not mean everyone's opinion is equal.
One of your first points is that President Obama is responsible for "rising energy and food costs" when in fact it is speculators on Wall Street who caused the price of gas to rise, thereby causing the cost of food to rise. In the meantime, the GOP/TP are busy trying to dismantle finance reforms and protect speculators, but you won't hear about this on FOX.
Or you could argue the Feds need to raise interest rates to lower inflation, or you could discuss OPEC's recent decision to keep output at current levels (supply and demand). Because you don't, I'm not going to burn anymore BTUs on the rest of your rambling post--it has nothing to do with acceptability to a liberal element.
AM, here is where you are exactly like Weiner. The pompous, sanctimonious, over-bearing, under-educated, know-it-all-ness, and flat out crassness of a statement such as yours that rich people aren't rich because of their hardwork is beyond the pale. You just have to tell the same lies Weiner does to demonize the people you hate, just to make them less than people and more like the slugs that you can not feel guilty about when your stepping on them. You are exactly like Weiner Annie. You do the same things he does. Certainly there is a tiny segment of people are rich from theft and other nefarious means, but the vast majority of them are hardworking patriots the love their country and pay their taxes. To have the likes of you and Weiner degrade these people is unconscionable.
JoAnna Smith1: Wake up now dear. You conveniently ignore the fact that the current $14 trillion deficit was accrued over 30 years of Republican dalliance. Anna Molly's cuts, applied consistently over 30 years would more than eliminate the debt.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Spunky sure does write a whole lot to say nuttin'. Hell, I got bored after "Sp".
What's the matter Indy, got no response?
Not surprising. Particularly given you use of the classically passive aggressive refrain "just sayin'."
Just saying what Indy. Come on be a big boy and own your comments. You can do it, I know you can.
Oh and great attempt to make fun of me with the "Spunky" thing-y. You do know that Spanky is not my name, don't you Indy Lib?
You're right, JoAnna, as you alway are, I'm unconscionable. And don't worry, you won't have to worry about the "likes of me" anymore. Be happy now.
Amy, thank you for the kind words. Greg, thanks for your support. Good luck to you both.
Slodon: This chart shows net job growth of 700,000 jobs in 2010, and 1.2 million from January, 2010 till now.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
For whatever it's worth.
Ah, the hypocrisy. you want a government Spanky (spelled correctly) but you want it broken, ineffective, and you don't want to pay for it. I know 99.99% of folks out there are statists, either conservative or liberal, and I'm cool with that though I don't understand why. But conservatives seem to want to sabotage an effective state. At least the liberal statists are making an honest effort to build an effective government and actually want it to work. What is it about conservative philosophy that both desires government but wants it broken to the point of irrelevance?
JoAnnaSmith1
I guess the Bush Tax Cuts didn't work for Bush, but work for Obama.
The man is magic.
Of course, on the opposite side of the revenue side of the equation, there is the spending side. And it appears we're running about a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit for the year. Much more than the increased revenue stream can keep up with. Any chance that spending can be reduced, you know, like Paul Ryan and the GOP have a plan for doing?
Joanna for some reason you take every article against the president, and spending, i asked you last week, considering how bad our deficits are why the GOP controlled congress sent 42 billion on a new HLS bill when Bin ladin is dead. you never answered, It Figures!!!!!
Now to my lession for Joanna today June 7, 2011.
This news is good for everybody, as we get toward 2012, How you may ask, well now the GOP can say, hey we made the president extend the bush tax cuts for 2 more years and look it put more money in the governments pocket, see the GOP wins.
The good news for the Democrats is that they can now say, hey we made good faith compromise with the GOP and look it put more money in the governments pocket, win for the democrats.
See, Now political lesson for Joanna is done.
the artical yesterday about the Bush tax cuts must have missed your computer, it was great, the important part for me was, 20 million jobs with a tax increase, and 5 million added with tax cuts and minus 1.2 million job losses in the last 12 month of the Bush years. See Joanna no matter what you post on here, the history will always say, Bush just crapped all over us!!!!!
Anna Molly,
What gives? Send an email.
"..the federal government is seeing strong revenue growth -- with no increase in income tax rates and no elimination of tax breaks."
Watch what you are saying there, MSNBC, you might irritate the moonbats...
One might conclude that tax cuts can increase economic activity and actually increase tax revenue.
We did that already in 2001 and since then created negative 2 million jobs till date compared to the 23million created the 8 years under Clinton before those tax cuts. Not to forget turning from a surplus then to deficits within a year of the tax cuts. If your tax cut logic works, we could cut down to nearly zero or even zero taxes to get increased tax revenue.
J. Richter,
Surely you are not stupid enough to not realize that the collapse was a "credit" issue in the financial markets and not a "tax" issue, right?
About that "surplus"? Another liberal lie - there was no surplus. The debt increased every single year under Clinton. You can't have a surplus when that happens.
Clinton confussed the low information folks with the national debt / public debt smoke with no mention of intragovernmental holdings mirror.
Might want to try that stuff on Yahoo, most will fall for that crap over there.
The heck you say, Bob! Clearly this can't be )despite historical evidence backing up your statement every single time!) WE must raise taxes on the big back corporations and the evil rich in order to raise revenue. Its' the only possible solution!
Did the sarcasm come through there or should I call attention to it?
bob - Everyone lies about the "surplus." The "surplus" was in social security, where it should have stayed. Democrats spent this "surplus" and Republicans based tax cuts this "surplus."
Bob
"..the federal government is seeing strong revenue growth -- with no increase in income tax rates and no elimination of tax breaks."
It doesn't mean revenue is stronger because there has been no tax increase, but revenue is stronger in spite of not seeing a tax increase. In other words, keeping people employed through the stimulus and automobile bailouts worked, which was the aim of keeping people employed.
Ah, Amy it is so cute that you keep trying.
But let's play this out. Tell us the numbers the auto bailouts kept employed. Yep, that sure does not account for it. Oh and don't forget to factor in the $4 billion auto loan Obama FORGAVE, and the $3.5 billion more he just made.
Now let's look at the stimulus. So we spent $787 billion to temporarily keep some people employed and you think that is helping because they can temporarily pay taxes? So give them $100 and they might give us back $3.50? Oh no.
Amy dear, the article plainly says we are still $67 billion behind '08. So we are out the $67 PLUS the $787.
Math, I know it is not your friend, but come on. Put. the Obama pom poms. Down.
Again - stop it. That goes against Amy's OPM theory. [Other People's Money]
You start talking about her money and you better just step off mister. She ain't having none of that nonsense!
Ain't that right Amy? Of course it is. So Tax code- what section did you read today to better yourself?
Amy, knowledge is power. Get some.
No, the world is not black-and-white in order to accommodate your simplistic Manichean minds. Even so, with all the right-wing Chicken Littles crying about the debt, why would anyone think we don't need more sources of revenue and more of it? At least be consistent.
Increasing the tax base by removing loopholes, as well as tax credits, is a first step that will help a good deal. AND yes, by removing tax credits it allows the tax rate to be lower for everyone. However, we will always need a an income tax (other types of tax don't generate enough, no matter what FOX tells you), and we will always need a progressive income tax, as history shows.
The GOP/TPers who advocate lowering the highest rate by 10 points from 35% to 25% are telling a great big lie and know it and don't care.
FYI True Pat, it is the very eeevvviiillll corps that advocate reducing rates and eliminating what you so sweetly call "loopholes." You know how much money, time and effort it takes to keep up with the tax code?
True how many hours does it take you just to calculate depreciation, capital gains and the MOFO Alternative minimum tax? I spend hundreds of hours on all of my returns during the year. So stop with the "it the repubs" crap. It is the dems who need to complexity to keep up their various social policies.
But I think your beef is with the IRC itself, and particularly those that wrote it. You know who that is, right True?
That's another good one Amy, fallacy of false cause, using correlation (or worse--in Glenn Beck's case guilt by association) and claiming direct cause and effect.
Spanky -- If loopholes are eliminated, the tax code is simplified.
Mortgage companies came out with the "No Doc" (no documentation of income) loans, because many of the richest 2% show no income on their tax returns so couldn't qualify for a loan. The richest 2% consist of a lot of self-employed, or small business owners who file as individuals, all of whom self-report their income. The IRS does not have the resources to go after all these people, so 57% of tax evasion continues to come from this group.
You might not support legal write-offs that allow 47% of Americans to pay little or no taxes--most who are W2 and are subjected to third-party reporting so can't cheat, who receive tax credits because unlike the rich they pay more of their income into Social Security and Medicare. But why would you support outright lies to evade taxes?
And social policies, you mean the lower cost of government administration of trust fund/entitlements compared to the private sector?
Thanks for playing.
If corporate giants get away without paying federal taxes and actually get a refund I WANT MY $8000 BACK!
True P - but as a real estate broker I can tell you first hand that 'liar loans" were not about helping rich people. Rich folk, whether self employed or not, can always get loans. and what is this crap about self-reporting income? Are you serious? Yep we can just make it up and file whatever. Sure we can, and sure the banks don't look even harder at our income.
I certainly do not advocate tax cheating. I advocate paying as little as possible, which is why I spend so much time and money on doing my tax returns and tax planning. Just as all companies do.
But I get a sense you are not self employed and get a w-2.
The government has always used the tax code for social policies - just look at tax credits for solar and electric cars. The tax code often picks winners and losers, but I wonder, have you ever actually read the IRC? Any of it? I'll guess no.
And brother I love playing. So how come so few libbies were out today? This is libbie land after all. But looking at just this thread, yu'd never get that.
Interesting, right?
Shall we resume tomorrow? Lets. We can chat about government efficiencies. Oh my.
Bob1805#'s-Surely you realize you are attempting to cloud the issue by smudging two different, separate issues together. The collapse of the world financial markets was caused by republican deregulation policies espoused by the greatest republican practitioner of our time: William Jefferson Clinton. Gramm-Leach-Bliley put the coup de gras on it all. Glass-Steagall was also dismantled through the 1980's.
The deficit was caused by republican tax policies of putting America's prosperity on a Chinese or Japanese credit card which is now limited out. Republican deficit spending is nothing more than a coward's way of raising taxes. Bush "financed" his entire administration of 100% credit. The bills are now due. The grownups in the room are left to pay them. We are noting a resurgence in the tax intake because we started from such a low tax deficit. Now that some people are getting back to work after the Great Recession you will note an ephemeral revenue increase.
After all,....when you are on the floor, there is nowhere to go,........ but up!
Did you mean FY2011?
One conclusion: even as debate rages in Washington over raising income tax rates and eliminating tax breaks, the federal government is seeing strong revenue growth -- with no increase in income tax rates and no elimination of tax breaks.
So does this mean those mean ole bush tax cuts are working? That just can't be true... according to the liberal playbook!! Wowser!
Somebody pinch me!!
No, you can pinch yourself all you want but it won't make your thought true. T
he Bush tax cuts added about $2.5 trillion to the national debt despite the recovery in 2002. Tax cuts do not increase revenues, never have and never will--that's conservative smoke and mirrors; even Reagan knew it. The tax cuts didn't work that well from 2001 through 2008. In 8 years, Bush created 3 million jobs most of which were lost before he left office. It simply means the recession which began in Dec 2007, and became a Great Recession in Sep 2008, lost a lot of jobs and a lot of revenue. As employment increases, those revenues will increase but even at full employment, it would not be enough to reduce the national debt--doubled by Bush 43 and the GOP's unfunded spending during good times--by much, if any.
Jody, are you equally critical of Clinton's job creation given the job loss that resulted just weeks into the Bush Administration when the .com bubble burst? Since you only call out Bush's increasing of the national debt while ignoring the exponential expansion of it that's taken place in a quarter of that time (2 years of Obama vs 8 years of Bush), I'm going to guess no, we're just Bush-bashing.
I swear, only liberals can find a way to turn increased revenue into a negative story. Way to go MSNBC!
Just because some people got raises and bonuses and some people were employed who weren't employed the year before does not mean that the Bush tax cuts worked---far from it. It still does not make sense that a person pays less tax on interest on bank accounts than on wages earned through hard work.
Suzy,
The Republican mantra was: we should have let the American automobile industry go bankrupt, it was wrong to pass the stimulus which saved public sector jobs, it was wrong to extend unemployment compensation, "These are Obama's tax cuts" "Obama owns the economy, stop blaming Bush."
Now you want to take credit for revenues being up?
Not my AM - I want to give the credit to Obama - they were his cuts. He said we needed them.
He was right. Why won't the libbies give him his due? Why all the continued references to "Bush's" tax cuts?
It great, and it is why they tax cuts will be re-authorized in 1 and 1/2 years. See basic economics is so easy, even a libbie like Obama can figure it out.
Oh and say Jody other than the fact that you can read, what do you know about job creation? Have you EVER read on section of the IRC?
Oh and Jody - please keep bringing up the debt. It is such a strong issue for you libbies. I don't suppose you want to start talking about deficits too? Come on it'll be loads of fun.
Amy, how long until the unsustainable legacy costs at GM & Chrylser have them crawling to the government for the next bailout? This is why many felt we should have allowed them to enter bankruptcy and reorganize. And imagine the work force and turnkey sights that would have been available to start ups like Tesla and other American companies trying to break into the green-auto industry. The status-quo hasn't produced any major advances here but I think we may have missed the boat on a huge opportunity in order to continue a failing industry. The stimulus cost nearly a billion dollars on the promise of creating shovel ready jobs which would needed. Instead it sustained government bloat which, again, is continuing a failing status quo. But hey, why change what isn't working, right? There's no logic at all in that. Extending unemployment compensation is a tricky business. For every one person I know who's been out of work and looking continuously for a job, I can show you another who won't start, that's right START, looking for a job until their benefits run out. And when extending benefits ends up putting more people on the unemployment line because the tax burden to sustain the benefits increases to the point where a business cannot turn a profit and closes it's door, who really won in the end? And in fact I am not taking credit for increased revenue. I'll give that to Obama. He finally came to his senses and continued a tax policy that was prudent for the current set of circumstances. Taking money out of the only place that it actually grows the economy in a time of tentative recovery is bad policy. It is only when people are allowed to retain their money and spend it through the private sector that our economy truly grows. So Obama can have all the credit he's due for continuing a necessary policy. Lets allow a true recovery to take hold and then we can revisit the necessity of tax increases.
Clueless Jody,
Actually Bush's revenues were 18.5% of GDP in 2007 ....... second highest since WW II.
So .... mind laying out that math ...... how revenues increased due to the tax rate ...... but it cost revenue?
Oh yea, also explain how Truman's tax rate of 91% produced the lowest revenues since WW II.
How much did that 91% rate "cost" America?
..and meanwhile, Republicans want to default on the Federal debt, thereby destroying the world as we know it, just to spite the president. By the way, "delaying interest payments for a few days" isn't a technical default. A technical default is when you breach financial or contractual covenants, reps and warranties and CPs and that type of thing. Delaying interest payments - what the Republicans are proposing - would constitute a payment default. US paper would be junk.
I guess we finally know just how much the Republicans know about finance and economics. Zilch.
No Bro we [you and I] know how much our fine state legislature knows about economics. A literal liberal paradise we got here, right?
So Cali First, we do you expect that WE will get bailed out? Would you say we are technically insolvent? Do you love the Cali IOUs?
So what's up with our boy Brown. Sure seems to be kicking some real tail these days right? Don't know about you but I am loving all those "temporary taxes" that they want to make permanent.
Ah, Cali democrats and economics. Good times.
Cali is probably technically insolvent, although Brown is doing all the right things after the Governator and his legislature pretty much destroyed us. The US, however, is not, and that is what we're talking about here. Default is not something you contemplate as a political gimmick.
Technically? You either joke, or are not familiar with the term. But, ok, do tell, what is Brown doing?
And of cousre the Us is not broke - they still have checks, so there must still be money in the account, right?
Default is the reality of your political gimmicks. The piper is here. Time to pay up.
I do love the: "his legislature" part. You appear to be truly delusional, unless you are saying Arnold was a democrat.
It's clear you are mainly interested in point-scoring, not a informed discussion of the issues. California is not the topic of this thread or discussion. It's the US treasury and budget.
Unless.. of course, you mean to suggest that since I just happen to live in a state with particular financial characteristics (and consequently pay high taxes), I'm not allowed to have an opinion on national politics... in which case, who made you Party Secretary? hehe
No - the topic was the was certainly what the "republicans know about finance and economics," right?
But yeah, you got me - Cali is ripe for the picking whenever I need to get cheap points. Too bad they are so terribly accurate, right. Veritable progressive paradise we got. Aren't we lucky?
Now let's get back to you point my man - what do the democrats know about finance or economics? We can talk about the stimulus, auto bailouts, or my favorite QE 2. So, just how is QE 2 treating you?
I took advantage of one of these programs a few years ago, I was so disappointed, not because the idea was bad. These colleges took the money and started programs that were outdated, they crammed useless information into the program, my feeling was they helped their friends get jobs teaching instead of focusing on the masses looking for work. On the job training, in manufacturing is always the best way. Companies across America should take some chances on inexperienced workers and train them the way you want them to work. The experienced ones know most of the what could happens but the new guys bring new ideas, you need a good balance to grow.
Mind you federal spending is growing massively and the federal government hasn't had a budget in two years, so it's kind of hard to bounce the revenue ball off an unknown wall. What we do know is that the debt is growing rapidly.
Not as massively as the last administration. In fact, this administration's policies have indeed addressed the reduction of federal spending.
You want a budget? Tell conservatives on the Hill (The Party of No) to stop filibustering & demagoging
Jim, are you serious?
Spending- Under the Obama administration spending has increased from 21% of GDP to 25% of GDP. Yeah they addressed it, more is better.
Deficits- In 2009 the Obama administration presented it's deficit projections with his budget and ended up just $2.3trillion low of the actual costs.
Nationalized Health care- Another oops projection, this time it's on the order of over $130B, making Obamacare cost over $1 trillion. It's my guess that they kept it under a trillion for a reason.
Banking/Housing- Freddie/Fannie bailout projections were wrong too. The Obama administration said it would cost $130B, but it was just a little over at $317B.
Stimulus- Oops again. This time it was $830B, not $790B.
Auto Industry- Not the big, blazing success reported either. That $17+B given is turning into a lot more losses for the American people because they are paying back one kind of bailout money with another bailout money, the government(well the people) are content with taking a big loss on the stock they got with the deal, the restructuring pushed a lot of the future profits(taxible) towards "enhancing" the unions pension plan and gave them seats on the board of directors (aka more power), the government is waving future taxes by Chrysler and GM, so there's another $10+B that won't be coming into the government coffers, etc.
So, you want a budget? You want to balance the budget? You want to tell the American people the truth about government spending, deficits, etc.?? Do ya? Not everyone posting comments is cluelesss, nor only plays by the partisan bullet points.
Jim
I suggest you read up on the Filibuster Rule. There are several types of Bills that CAN NOT be subject to the Filibuster. And guess what. The Budget is one of the Bills EXEMPT from the Filibuster.
The Liberals/Progressives need to get a different line then Filibuster.
Well I guess it is not a revenue problem after all...it's a spending problem. Obama needs to live within the country's means...I do.
1st thing, it's both a revenue & spending problem, you cannot cut yourself to economic solvency. Secondly, you are not a country. No country can run like a household or a business.
Come to think about it, conservatives didn't do so hot running the country over 8 years, did they?
JIm, You are wrong a country is a business.
Shawn, tell me please. What business takes care of our nation's national security, has it's own military, provides for our country's elderly, protects your liberties, wages war in defense of our nation, writes our legislation, prints their own money provides global & domestic aid ?
No government now, or ever could be ran like a business
No shawn, it isn't. It doesn't sell any products, it doesn't PROFIT, which is the primary purpose for a business's existence.
Please elaborate on how Obama has radically changed our spending for the worse, as compared to the previous occupant, who demonstrably blew up a balanced budget. Was it Obama's crazy extension of the Bush Tax Gift to the Rich? Or was it the stimulus, which was very much like the TARP program passed by Bush? (size, intent)
The country is not a business. It is not LIKE a business. I cannot be run like a business. Trying to make the country like a business is one of the things causing our problems.
Has anyone considered that lending activity has increased? Consumer use of credit cards and orders placed by large manufacturers to subcontractors is on the rise. Spending increases by consumers generate revenues which generate tax dollars.
From Bloomberg:
"Lending activity posted modest but broad-based gains across the District over the last few months. Commercial and industrial lending expanded, especially for capital equipment and storage facilities. Several community bankers also cited increasing loan demand from small businesses. These borrowers had new orders from large manufacturers, who were subcontracting to keep up with demand. Consumers were starting to use credit cards again, according to several lenders, and were increasingly seeking financing for autos and home improvements."
It's not the tax cuts, it's borrowings which is causing the increase in spending which in turn generate tax dollars.
Wake up people, this revenue is nothing compared to our debt. Just another spin to make Washington look good.
LOL,, Try reducing debt without revenue dude
You wake up! -- Ask why conservatives are spending tax payer money opposing what needs to be done to create jobs & reduce our debt?
Well. it seems that the Republicans' plan is to reduce the debt by walking away from it. That works. You don't need revenue to reduce debt if you simply default on your obligations and then use your army to fight off creditors....or whatever it is they plan to do with their ridiculous "let's default for a few days" plan. Epic fail.
Explain how not increasing the debt is "walking away from it."
Do you actually believe, for one second the current revenue does not vastly outpace the current debt service requirements? Really?
So is not, then why can't the government simply pay the existing debt first? Of course this certainly would not produce default, right?
Yep - it's those republican that are ridiculous. Definitely not you.
Spanky,
Based on the current revenue stream we can't pay current debts with current revenue. Even as revenue increases, our spending is outpacing revenue by at least $1.5 trillion for the current fiscal year.
Even if we default on our debt, we cannot walk away from it unless we declare ourselves insolvent and somehow go into bankruptcy. I don't know if the government is even allowed to do that.
First step is match match current revenues with current expenses and then work on the longer term problems. At least that way we've stopped the hemorrhage.
Spanky,
One more thing. What ever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment? Most states have one. Why isn't there a movement to make it Constitutional Law?
Groucho - you are flat wrong. Plus no debt ceiling raise no more new debt. Our debt service is no where near the $2.6 (ish) in revenue we bring in now.
We have far more revenue than current debt. In fact after we prioritize debt first we'd still have a lot of money left each month.
Balanced budget amendment wuld be about as effective as Pay GO. Fix it all - no more debt incurred. Oh the horror - having to live within our means.
Spanky,
According to US Government Spending.com, a government site, estimated revenues are 4,460 billion and estimated expenses 6,160 billion for 2011. US government's own numbers. Do not know where you are getting the more revenue than debt concept....there's a deficit.
Why you only including debt service, recurring expenditures don't count in your calculus?
Spanky.. I was referring to the Republican/Paul Ryan thing earlier this week, where they suggested that they can force the Dems into agreeing to spending cuts by simply stopping the Treasury's ability to make interest payments on outstanding Federal obligations - in other words, a payment default of the US sovereign. The impact on that on world capital markets would be devastating.
Groucho - we take in $2.6 Trillion in revenue a year. Are yo really saying we have more than $2.6 Trillion in debt - monies owed that could result in a DEFAULT?
Will there have to be some changes to what money goes where? Yes, but the debts do not outstrip, or even come close to the revenue. Yo numbers are just way off.
Sure we may not be able to keep eating out at fine dining, going on vacations, but we got more than enough to pay to mortgage, and the credit cards.
Oh and Cali First - sure devastating. Let's pretend that the current debt is not $14.3 Trillion, that unfunded gov. liabilities are not $62 Trillion plus. Sure lets go Full Faith and all that.
Full Faith in a ponzi scheme is just silly.
Take it easy fellas - Catch you tomorrow. Given the pregnancy news seems like it'll be a lot of dick talk.
Hum? It seems higher revenue might actually be a benefit. Maybe we should work on repealing the Bush Tax cuts and we might actually get over all the cuts crap the GOP is crying about.
I'm sure Republicans will find a way to give Bush the credit for this news based on the idea that somehow things got better now because of tax cuts that have been in effect for most of a decade. Because to them everything good is Bush's fault (they act like Bush personally killed Bin Laden himself but it took awhile for the news to reach us) and everything bad is to blame on that evil African Muslim who stole the White House.
I’m happy to hear good economic news. But unlike the right-wingers who are desperate for something to grasp at in making their case, the ONLY variable that is different since 2000 is the job growth that started after President Obama’s election (and things like helping automakers, passing the Recovery Act, etc.).
Tax cuts do NOT create jobs (I’ve provided links to credible sources for this too—do your own work), deregulation is what caused the economic meltdown, and the market does not correct itself. The last sentence of the article tells it all:
GOP/TP in the House – Where are the JOBS!?
So TRue P - you think it's the Republicans that are desperate for good economic news? Not say, oh I don't know, Obama?
But I get it True - the dems have absolutely no responsibility for jobs, just the republicans. Because as we can all see - the government is so very good at creating jobs.
Keep running up that hill True.
True
This is what the $800 Billion Recovery Act has done for the Job Market.
The Unemployment rate in 2009 was 9.3%
The Unemployment rate in 2010 was 9.6%
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
Another way to look at it.
The the number of Unemployed people in April 2009 was 13,734,000.
The number of Unemployed people in April 2011 was 13,747,000
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
Put a check in Civilian Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS13000000.
Scroll down and click --Retrieve Data-- for chart.
Gee! TWO YEARS of the Recovery Act and we LOST 13,000 jobs!!
So we PAID $61.5 Million for EACH LOST JOB!
I didn't lose my job slodon. In fact because of George Bush and B. Obama my job was saved along with about 70,000 others at Chrysler that I pass by in the lunchroom every day at the World HQ.
The lady who served me a chicken schwarma sandwich, her job at the restaurant near Chrysler was saved too. So was the job of the silicon chip manufacturer and designer for the ignition modules that go into Chryslers. So was the dude's job at PPG in Pittsburg who designed and made our plate glass for the windows. The job of the guy operating the steamshovel at the Mesabi Mine in Minnesota was saved too. That ore became the steel in Chryslers. The chumps working oil rigs for the petrochemicals that became the vehicle carpeting had their jobs saved too. The guy who drives the vehicles on the vehicle carrier to the dealership had his job saved as well. The kid washing the cars in dealer prep has a job today as well. The credit union or bank loan underwriter has their job today making car loans for the Chryslers. The security guard walking the beat to protect the vehicle from vandalism will draw a paycheck on Friday because Bush and Obama wisely saved a 4 million job industry from extinction, and a country from Depression.
I would be totally willing to bet that they saved your sorry job in some way too,.....so I guess it ain't all good results.
By ERIC SCHURENBERG, The Fiscal Times
May 10, 2011
I’m no more innumerate than the next financial journalist, but when hungry, I still prefer a snack that is 98 percent fat free to one that is 2 percent solid cholesterol. And if I’m sick, I’ll take a medicine that has a 20 percent chance of working over one known to be ineffective 80 percent of the time. I can’t help but be swayed by the framing of choices, even when I know the choice is an illusion. You can’t either. It’s the way our brains work.
Unfortunately, it’s also how the budget debate is working. In budgetary arithmetic, there is no difference between a dollar of spending and a dollar of tax breaks, and the political purpose of the two is identical—to reward certain politically favored behavior and discourage the opposite. But on the floor of Congress and on the campaign trail, the difference between a tax dollar spent and tax dollar not collected is fundamental. The former is bad, the latter is good. Take a look at two separate subsidies for motherhood: When delivered as a government check, it is a handout, and recipients are known as “welfare mothers.” When delivered as
a tax credit, the same subsidy is tax relief, and recipients are known as “mothers.”
Harvard Law professor turned Treasury tax official Stanley Surrey coined the term “tax expenditure” to level the rhetorical playing field between government goodies delivered as deductions, credits, or tax deferrals and those delivered as checks. But rhetorically—and cognitively—it’s still not a fair fight. Government spending still feels like an intrusion. Tax breaks feel like a blessing, and Republicans in particular have built their public message around that false distinction. That’s too bad: Individual and corporate tax expenditures now cost the U.S. Treasury more than a trillion dollars a year and account for a third to a quarter of all government benefits and subsidies — without being subject to annual appropriations review. Once a tax break is in the tax code, it continues until specifically excised.
What’s worse, tax expenditures tend to be a particularly ineffective way to spend a trillion of the taxpayers’ dollars, especially when delivered as a tax deduction. Take, for example, the second largest tax expenditure (after the deductibility of employer-provided health care): the home mortgage deduction. Jason Fichtner, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus center at George Mason University, describes how the much-beloved tax break (which the OMB estimates will cost $98.5 billion in 2012) goes wrong:
The deductibility of mortgage interest ... provides an incentive
for people to own, rather than rent, under the theory that…people are more
likely to care and invest in the community ... if they are home owners ....[But
its] design as a tax deduction provides perverse incentives and might not
actually help those who really need help. For example, [it] encourages larger
mortgages and larger homes than a family might buy without the deduction.
Further, it’s worth more to higher income taxpayers because the deduction is
offset against higher marginal tax rates, while for those in lower tax brackets
the deduction is worth less or nothing at all for people who don’t itemize.
Specifically, while about two-thirds of American households own homes, only about a quarter of taxpayers take the home mortgage deduction—either because they don’t have a mortgage, or because they don’t itemize deductions. Although a number of retirees with limited incomes may have benefitted from the deduction and have paid off their mortgages, running this subsidy through the tax code assures that this $98.5 billion addition to the budget deficit mainly benefits families in the top tax brackets living in the poshest homes in America. If Congress were actually to appropriate $98.5 billion in funds to promote community feeling, you’d have to believe they’d find a more effective way to do it.
The worst thing about the framing of tax expenditures is that it forces Republicans to regard any attempt to rein them in as a tax hike — which, of course, they are sworn to oppose. The closest the Republican “Path to Prosperity” deficit reduction plan comes to addressing tax expenditures is to fold them into a still vague tax reform promise in which “loopholes and deductions” would be reduced in return for lower tax rates. That’s fine as far as it goes. But as Eric Todor, an economist with the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute points out, “The most egregious tax expenditures are the small ones that favor, say, bow-and-arrow makers or hedge
fund managers. But the most expensive ones are those that benefit millions, like the home mortgage deduction and the one for health insurance.” It will be no easy feat, he says, to get millions of taxpayers to give those up as part of tax reform. That may simply be one reform too far.
There may be one other way, however. Economist Martin Feldstein in a New York Times Op Ed last week suggested limiting tax deductions to 2% of a taxpayers’ adjusted gross income. (The President’s deficit reduction plan would also impose a limit on deductions, but it would apply only to high income taxpayers.) Congress could avoid the bruising tax-break-by-tax-break fight needed to close out most expenditures, as envisioned in standard reform programs, and some Republicans could embrace the plan because it would allow greater revenue without raising marginal tax rates.
Before that is possible, however, the question has to be reframed. Lawmakers have to concede that tax credits, deductions, tax deferrals and preferential rates are not the opposite of government spending. They are, as Feldstein puts it, “government spending by another name.” Any serious deficit plan must put them on the table.
Douglas 2917482 that was BRILLIANT!!!
Come on folks! Stop deceiving yourselves, this timid recovery is due exclusively to the "trickle down effect" instituted by Reagan in the 80's, and followed by Bush with his multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the upper 1% of the population. They need it more than we do, and that's that.
Let's give credit where credit is due!
Numbers means nothing you can use them to say anything you want. All I know is a household or a business cannot function with a deficit for a long time. If they do eventually they have to file for bankruptcy. The USA like most of the Western World is running on deficits. Eventually countries like China, Russia and the oil producing countries will call in the debt and the USA will be in default and it will bring a depression never seen before.
1) The government has to reduce spending no matter what and have a budget surplus to pay off the National Debt.
2) We American should put Americans back to world by buying American Built Products.
3) More revenue is due, in part, to the termination on the prepayment on the EIC. Next year the deficit will be greater.
4) We should terminate the EIC.
5) Let's institute the Fair Tax.
6) Limit the term of politician to two terms. And you will see Washington change for the best in a heart beat.
revenues are meaningless unless they can help explain a budget, be related to debt by ratio, and cover or balance the spending or debt incurred.
Wow, you mean that revenues still might not be quite as strong as they were just before the bubble burst?
Well, duh.
hate to burst your bubble, but obama is failing
You know, rob, it's stupid @!$%# like this that has earned you your much-deserved reputation.
Now, let go of my ankle, little poodle, or people are going to think you are nothing more than one a them cyber-stalker psycho @!$%#wits.
OH NO!! say it aint so libs!! revenue growth WITHOUT raising taxes? didnt you say this was impossible??
and revenue under obama STILL lagging behind Bush's last year (his worse economically)???? say it aint so left-wingers!!!
sharp recession are almost always marked by sharp recoveries; unless you have inept liberals running things
So revenue in Obama's best year lags Bush's worst year? yea sounds right.
is this another "summer of recovery" libs?
ay rob,just be ready for this President to be sworn in for another 4 years,and ah,could you answer 1 question for me? who are you backing for PRESIDENT?...I THOUGHT SO!......CHECKMATE!.....Obama/Biden 2012
yawn; whatever; this false bravado by the loony left is boring
you mean obama's average 9.4% unemployment rate should be rewarded with 4 more years? and you should be taken seriously why? lmao!
every republican running has a better track record than obama
the loony Left thinks obama deserves re-election!! tee hee!! priceless!
ay rob you didn't answer my question:who are you backing for President on your leader-less side? could you please answer this?...............yawn......................I'm waiting................crickets....................................
i did answer your question; EVERY candidate is more of a sucess than the failure we have in the White House now
dont be sad little lefty; you can demonize all of them; if there's one thing a lefty can do it's hate