US Deficit lowest since 2007

a reply to: rnaa

You're not helping to clarify matters.

Federal revenue went up every year that Reagan was President, and under Bush, it only went down in 2002 and 2008. Under Obama, it's fallen in 2009 and 2012. You still think the tax cuts hurt revenue?

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...

As far as the CDC goes, they have been wasting money on questions like why lesbians are more likely to be fat.

watchdog.org...

The CDC’s overall core budget has remained stagnant, funded at nearly the same level in FY2012 as it was in 2003.

To make matters worse, President Obama’s FY13 proposal would cut the nation’s prevention-focused agency, in real dollar terms, below 2003 funding levels next year.

Also, despite large investments in bioterrorism preparedness since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, inflation has cut those gains to the CDC’s core budget in half today. Those gains would be erased entirely if the Administration’s plan is enacted.

cphfoundation.tumblr.com...

The president is asking for less, not the Republicans.

And infrastructure work? What happened to the trillion dollars or so we were charged to create shovel ready jobs? Do we need to spend another three trillion do get started on the work?

So where did all that sweet stimulus money go? Of the money spent in swing state Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions-those with already locked-in jobs. In fact, right-to-work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states. Where Democrats had a vast majority of representatives, their states got $460 per person more.

When Obama signed the stimulus bill in 2009, he promised it would provide "help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis." Clearly, it did not. The states hurt the most, the ones with more foreclosures, unemployment, and bankruptcy, got less money than richer states closer to power. Washington, D.C. got the most stimulus money: $7,602 per capita.

www.christianpost.com...

And if you're measuring the economy by GDP, it went up steadily under all of our presidents including Bush and Reagan The only reduction was in Obama's second year, 2010.

www.tradingeconomics.com...

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: charles1952

Democrat republican.

Both crap parties owned by lobbyist and corporation.

Precisely.

Keep the sheep nice and divided squabbling over nonsense so that they'll never be able to revolt.

Dumb Americans gonna dumb.

a reply to: duaneology

May I suggest you vote for a third party, then? Or, would you rather vote for Hillary? And if we're never able to revolt, is that a bad thing in your eyes? Are you calling for a revolution?

a reply to: xuenchen

I am happy to respond to questions that make sense.

a reply to: charles1952

Federal revenue went up every year that Reagan was President, and under Bush, it only went down in 2002 and 2008. Under Obama, it's fallen in 2009 and 2012. You still think the tax cuts hurt revenue?

Of course it does.

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

The takeaway point is that Revenue would have been even higher without the deep Regan tax cuts.

Click on the source cited above for the long analysis.

So where did all that sweet stimulus money go? Of the money spent in swing state Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions-those with already locked-in jobs. In fact, right-to-work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states. Where Democrats had a vast majority of representatives, their states got $460 per person more.

It wasn't 'unionized' vs. 'nonunionized'. Its a fact that those 'right-to-work' states have more reactionary governments - that is how they got to be right to work states in the first place. The Government leaders of those states tended to reject stimulus money on ideological grounds.

Remember McConnell's manifesto:

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Not "help get America out of the worst recession since the 1930's"; not maintain a stance of 'loyal opposition' but of total obstruction - The Party of "NO".

Here's what the Pary of "NO" owes the people of the United States after the government shutdown: 24 Billion dollars.

(source)

$24 billion. That’s according to an estimate from Standard & Poor’s. The financial services company said the shutdown, which ended with a deal late Wednesday night after 16 days, took $24 billion out of the U.S. economy, and reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent.