Goobieman

US deficit is shrinking, for now | csmonitor.com

FY2008: a surplus?

So, who doesnt think this is good news?

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

Iriemon

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Cremaster77

It would be good news if the way it was being spun was remotely true. From the very article you posted:
Not sure where you are getting the surplus in 2008.

And here's the kicker:
So the surplus only exists if new tax revenues are added by letting the tax cuts expire. So much for the theory that endless tax cuts raise federal revenue.

Wake me up when there are real cuts in federal expenditures, and then I'll be jumping up and down at the happy news.

Goobieman

Please feel free to point out the parts that aren't true.

From the article, originally posted in bold:
The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

This is relevant to the CURRENT huge cuts in the deficit and the prediction of a possible surplus in 2008...how?

Nah, you'll just find a way to argue that its STILL not good news.

Cremaster77

I think I already did. Feel free to keep pretending like I didn't though.

I saw that, and showed that both the Bush administration and the CBO state otherwise. You take the word of a single economist over the entire administration and the CBO. Again I will say, I'm not sure where you're getting 2008 when it's been clear that the consistent and widely held estimates shows 2012 and require that the tax cuts expire in order for a surplus to occur.


The prediction of a surplus is ridiculous. Any single person can predict anything. There are still huge deficits and this will not go away as predicted by reputable national sources without the tax cuts expiring. That's not relevant?

Believe what you want. Apparently you will no matter what if you are taking the word of a single economist over the Bush administration estimates and the estimates of the CBO. Get rid of Social Security, cap health care spending, get rid of these tax cuts that have killed the federal budget, and eliminate the debt so that I'll do the sacrificing rather than my children, and I'll be ecstatic.

Goobieman

Ah. Delusions.

You'll note that CBO/OMB predictions made at the beginning of the fiscal year - say nothing of the beginning of the budget process - are often very wrong. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that the economist on question is making his prediction based on real-time data and trends rather than the Bureaucratic Method used by the CBO (etc)

Like I said -- delusions. I showed you, twice -- and even after you admit having seen it twice, you STILL aren't sure?

Only because you dont like the prediction?
Show how his prediction is wrong.

Not when we'e talking about the slashing of the deficit in FY2007 and a prediction regarding things in 2008. How is the expiration of the tax cuts relevant to that?

Wait... you're arguing that the Bush Administration is giving out credible information?
And you think that because... you dont want to admit that its possible that there might be a surplus in FY2008?
Why dont you want to admit that?

Tet rid of entitlemens, as you suggest, and we can cut taxes even further.

galenrox

Misleading perhaps, but what about that is untrue? He observed that one economist predicted that we would have a surplus by 2008. I don't see why he should be held accountable for you not taking what he said at face value. What did he claim, that one economist predicted a surplus in 2008? Do you choose to refute that claim, and thus claim that no economist has predicted that? Because that would be what you'd have to do in order to claim that his claim is false.
Now what a rational response to it would've been to first analyze the value of the prediction of one generic, unnamed economist, which isn't a whole hell of a lot, other than observing that it's possible for an educated person to expect that prediction to come true. It would be a severe mistake in analysis to take that as evidence that we would in fact have a surplus in 2008, and Goobieman can't be held accountable for mistaken analysis of what he posted.
What reputable sources? The ones who think that we'll have an easier time balancing the budget with less in tax revenues? Yeah, cause if my monthly budget was cut from $1500 to $1200, I'd really have a lot easier time making ends meet, obviously.

See, and here's your mistake. Where did he say that he takes the word of the unnamed economist over the CBO?

What evidence do you have that the tax cuts killed the federal budget? Because tax revenues have been steadily skyrocketing since then, so it's gonna require a damn good theoretical argument and some damn good empirical results to substantiate that skyrocketing tax revenues killed the federal budget.

__________________

Cremaster77

Point out one post, just one, where I have said that the Bush Administration never puts out credible information. Just one. This particular piece of information is all the more credible because it has been independently confirmed. I'll be waiting for that post of mine. Thanks in advance.

Because all of the credible information I have seen says otherwise. Is it possible that the sun really revolves around the earth? I guess. But all the credible information I have seen says otherwise. Why take the word of a single economist over every other piece of credible evidence thus far?


I'm all for cutting taxes as long as the budget remains balanced. At least the Democrats are trying to institute a system where tax cuts are tied to spending cuts. The Republicans had six years and what did they do? Borrow and spend, borrow and spend. In a perfect world, I vote to eliminate the debt and then cut taxes with a rebalanced budget. But that's not the choice. It's clear the choice is between tax and spend or borrow and spend. I choose to actually pay for expenditures. Clearly, you'd rather borrow and let someone else (namely your children) pay.

Goobieman

I believe Galenrox made my points well enough.

Hmm. I said:
How did that statement lead you to your conclusion?

Cremaster77

The quote was simple:
"FY2008: a surplus?

So, who doesnt think this is good news?"
The very statement assumes that the surplus in FY2008 is true. How else could it be thought of as good news. By assuming that this single prediction was true, he takes the word of this single, unnamed economist over the predictions of the Administration and the CBO.

Bush's tax cuts in 2001 were the largest ever. Immediately afterwards, the federal revenue decreased for three straight years. The only time this has happened since 1950. In 4 of the 5 years between 1950 and 2000 that the federal revenue dropped, the GDP contracted either the year before or the year of the drop in federal revenue. During the Bush administration, the GDP grew every year that the federal revenue decreased. So not only was Bush the ONLY president to have 3 consecutive years of decreasing revenues, he did it while the economy as a whole was growing. All of this occurred immediately after unprecedented tax cuts. So unprecedented tax cuts coincide with unprecedented drops in federal revenue and unprecedented federal deficits.

The current record revenues that some have been gushing about occurred in 45 of the 50 years between 1950 and 2000. 90% of the time, ultimately, federal revenue increases due to an expanding economy. So to say that the tax cuts are responsible for the the record revenues when record revenues have occurred 90% of the time from 1950 on makes no sense. However, to say that unprecedented tax cuts have lead to unprecedented decreased in federal revenues and federal deficits is logical and borne out by the data.