• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Spending up 9%

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Taxes are up 2% or 51bn over same time last year, so no wonder the deficit keeps increasing.

Amounts withheld from workers’ paychecks rose by $30 billion (or 2 percent). That
change largely reflects increases in wages and salaries

Customs duties increased by $19 billion (or 78 percent), primarily because of new tariffs
imposed by the Administration during the past year.
Click to expand...

Spending is up 9% or 255bn over same period last year.

-132bn mandatory social spending
-53bn DOD and VA
-37bn additional interest on the debt

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-06/55329-MBR.pdf

6 months since Democrats took over the House, and a couple month till FY2020, and still no budget, no approprations. The House budget committee has put out a framework to increase spending, thats it. Oh, also a hearing on budgetary effects of climate change 50 years from now.
 
jonny5 said:
Taxes are up 2% or 51bn over same time last year, so no wonder the deficit keeps increasing.



Spending is up 9% or 255bn over same period last year.

-132bn mandatory social spending
-53bn DOD and VA
-37bn additional interest on the debt

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-06/55329-MBR.pdf

6 months since Democrats took over the House, and a couple month till FY2020, and still no budget, no approprations. The House budget committee has put out a framework to increase spending, thats it. Oh, also a hearing on budgetary effects of climate change 50 years from now.
Click to expand...

2019 receipts may be up over the same period in 2018, but bother were depressed due to tax-cuts. Both 2019 and 2018 receipts are lower than previous years.

fredgraph.png
 
Based on what I can find... since the US went to this current system for budgeting and spending (almost 50 years old now) Congress has passed all required appropriations measures on time only four times from then to now. Fiscal years 1977, 1989, 1995 and 1997.

The 2019 fiscal year *almost* made the list as five appropriations bills were passed in and around September 2018 (arguably on time depending on point of view) making it the first time in some 22 years that was pulled off that way, but there was a fair amount of the government still funded through a series of continuing resolutions that are nothing more than a lazy way to continue funding government without going through the entire budgetary process.

We still face the same problem with this current President and current Congress. Trump's budget proposal was pretty much dead on arrival in Congress, 2019 planning for 2020 fiscal year is stalled out in House committees and subcommittees with no end in sight for something to send over to the Senate, who odds are will reject anything coming from the House. There is so much early campaigning and rhetoric going on right now that odds are we'll see some sort of continuing resolution pushing everything until after the election.

In the meantime our Total Debt as a percentage of GDP is going back up, 105.3% as of 2018 Q4 (numbers are not in yet for 2019 Q1 but I am seeing estimates in the 106% range.) Overall where we are in terms of surplus or deficit means paying attention to both tax revenues and spending *relational* to what the economic indications are at the time.

Our issue today is we are at the wrong point on the economic cycle to see spending go up faster than tax revenue, we are increasing deficits at a time where the economy is improving that does not help our fiscal position when the economy takes a downturn. That is the true failure of Trump's tax cuts. Additional interest on Debt is the smallest part of the increase, so it is rather dubious to blame the Fed.
 
MTAtech said:
2019 receipts may be up over the same period in 2018, but bother were depressed due to tax-cuts. Both 2019 and 2018 receipts are lower than previous years.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=oagi[IMG][/QUOTE]

Chart makes no sense. We dont collect 2 trillion every quarter. And we collect far more than 2 trillion every year.

CBO says Income tax and payroll tax receipts are up year after year. Nearly double in the last decade alone. And theres another 500bn in other revenues.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]67258031._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[url=https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#2]Budget and Economic Data | Congressional Budget Office[/url]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Based on what I can find... since the US went to this current system for budgeting and spending (almost 50 years old now) Congress has passed all required appropriations measures on time only four times from then to now. Fiscal years 1977, 1989, 1995 and 1997.

The 2019 fiscal year *almost* made the list as five appropriations bills were passed in and around September 2018 (arguably on time depending on point of view) making it the first time in some 22 years that was pulled off that way, but there was a fair amount of the government still funded through a series of continuing resolutions that are nothing more than a lazy way to continue funding government without going through the entire budgetary process.

We still face the same problem with this current President and current Congress. Trump's budget proposal was pretty much dead on arrival in Congress, 2019 planning for 2020 fiscal year is stalled out in House committees and subcommittees with no end in sight for something to send over to the Senate, who odds are will reject anything coming from the House. There is so much early campaigning and rhetoric going on right now that odds are we'll see some sort of continuing resolution pushing everything until after the election.

In the meantime our Total Debt as a percentage of GDP is going back up, 105.3% as of 2018 Q4 (numbers are not in yet for 2019 Q1 but I am seeing estimates in the 106% range.) Overall where we are in terms of surplus or deficit means paying attention to both tax revenues and spending *relational* to what the economic indications are at the time.

Our issue today is we are at the wrong point on the economic cycle to see spending go up faster than tax revenue, we are increasing deficits at a time where the economy is improving that does not help our fiscal position when the economy takes a downturn. That is the true failure of Trump's tax cuts. Additional interest on Debt is the smallest part of the increase, so it is rather dubious to blame the Fed.
Click to expand...

Id say its the true failure of Congress AND Trumps lack of action on mandatory spending, if were ignoring history before Trump. The entire deficit can be traced to Healthcare and Income Security programs.
 
jonny5 said:
Chart makes no sense. We dont collect 2 trillion every quarter. And we collect far more than 2 trillion every year.
Click to expand...

You need to go back and re-read the chart. It doesn't say we collect 2 trillion every quarter, nor does it say the federal government collects $2 trillion every year. It does show the level of current tax receipts on a quarterly annualized basis in terms of National Income Product Accounts (or how it aligns with GDP).

CBO says
Click to expand...

MTA's source is retrieved from the Bureau of Economic Analysis via the FRED database.
 
jonny5 said:
Chart makes no sense. We dont collect 2 trillion every quarter. And we collect far more than 2 trillion every year.

CBO says Income tax and payroll tax receipts are up year after year. Nearly double in the last decade alone. And theres another 500bn in other revenues.

View attachment 67258031

Budget and Economic Data | Congressional Budget Office
Click to expand...
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
 
jonny5 said:
Taxes are up 2% or 51bn over same time last year, so no wonder the deficit keeps increasing.



Spending is up 9% or 255bn over same period last year.

-132bn mandatory social spending
-53bn DOD and VA
-37bn additional interest on the debt

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-06/55329-MBR.pdf

6 months since Democrats took over the House, and a couple month till FY2020, and still no budget, no approprations. The House budget committee has put out a framework to increase spending, thats it. Oh, also a hearing on budgetary effects of climate change 50 years from now.
Click to expand...

So Dems have had the Congress for 6 months. Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for 2 years (4x as long). They didn't decrease spending. Instead they gave billionaire tax cuts, and skyrocketed the deficit.
 
MTAtech said:
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
Click to expand...

Neither the population, nor inflation, have doubled in 10 years. Not even if you combine them. Meanwhile taxes have increased by 1.3 trillion. Unfortunately they keep outspending it.
Amounts withheld from workers’ paychecks rose by $30 billion (or 2 percent). That
change largely reflects increases in wages and salaries
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
Neither the population, nor inflation, have doubled in 10 years. Not even if you combine them. Meanwhile taxes have increased by 1.3 trillion. Unfortunately they keep outspending it.
Click to expand...
First, taxes haven't increased. Tax REVENUE has increased of the last ten years.
Second, tax revenue was depressed from 2009 - 2012 because of the recession.
Third, after the recession ended, tax revenue, adjusted for inflation and population growth (see chart) is flat-line, with the exception that starting in 2013, the upper-income tax portion, originally from the Bush tax-cuts, expired. That's the bump in revenue that we see.

usgs_line.php
 
Media_Truth said:
So Dems have had the Congress for 6 months. Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for 2 years (4x as long). They didn't decrease spending. Instead they gave billionaire tax cuts, and skyrocketed the deficit.
Click to expand...

This isn’t a new issue, it’s been going on for years. Out of Obama’s 8 years, how many times was an actual budget passed? Twice?
 
MTAtech said:
First, taxes haven't increased. Tax REVENUE has increased of the last ten years.
Second, tax revenue was depressed from 2009 - 2012 because of the recession.
Third, after the recession ended, tax revenue, adjusted for inflation and population growth (see chart) is flat-line, with the exception that starting in 2013, the upper-income tax portion, originally from the Bush tax-cuts, expired. That's the bump in revenue that we see.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

First. Tax revenue is TAXES. And B. Even prior to the recession, TAXES are up nearly a trillion in a decade. And fourth your chart is meaningless. What is direct revenue and why does per capita matter? Most people dont pay any income tax. Taxes come from many sources. The fact is actual real revenue is UP, way up, tax cuts or no. And SPENDING is up even more. Why are you stuck on taking more money from people when spending is clearly the problem? Even if we could go back to the magical taxation time of the 90s, we would still be spending 500bn more than we take in.

Capture.JPG
 
jonny5 said:
First. Tax revenue is TAXES. And B. Even prior to the recession, TAXES are up nearly a trillion in a decade. And fourth your chart is meaningless. What is direct revenue and why does per capita matter? Most people dont pay any income tax. Taxes come from many sources. The fact is actual real revenue is UP, way up, tax cuts or no. And SPENDING is up even more. Why are you stuck on taking more money from people when spending is clearly the problem? Even if we could go back to the magical taxation time of the 90s, we would still be spending 500bn more than we take in.

View attachment 67258131
Click to expand...
The point I am making is that tax-rates (except for 2013) were unchanged during Obama's term. Tax REVENUE was up. Is that really a bad thing?
 
MTAtech said:
The point I am making is that tax-rates (except for 2013) were unchanged during Obama's term. Tax REVENUE was up. Is that really a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Revenue was up the last two years as well, WITH TAX CUTS but that doesn't resonate with you and the other radicals. You keep trying to prop up Obama who is out of office and will be relegated to Jimmy Carter status with economists and pollsters in the future, another leftwing opportunity lost. Worst recovery in modern history making Carter look good.
 
MTAtech said:
The point I am making is that tax-rates (except for 2013) were unchanged during Obama's term. Tax REVENUE was up. Is that really a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Yes, but its not really relevant. We dont have a revenue problem other than the way the tax burden is distributed. The amount is more than enough. We just spend EVEN more than that.
 
jonny5 said:
Yes, but its not really relevant. We dont have a revenue problem other than the way the tax burden is distributed. The amount is more than enough. We just spend EVEN more than that.
Click to expand...
Enough? Our current deficit is over 5% of GDP.
 
MTAtech said:
The point I am making is that tax-rates (except for 2013) were unchanged during Obama's term. Tax REVENUE was up. Is that really a bad thing?
Click to expand...

What do you you call the additional taxes built into the ACA?
 
jonny5 said:
Yes, but its not really relevant. We dont have a revenue problem other than the way the tax burden is distributed. The amount is more than enough. We just spend EVEN more than that.
Click to expand...

Revenues for this year are running at 16.1% of GDP... do you know when the last time a level like that would have balanced the budget? 1956!
 
MTAtech said:
I said 2013, which was when those taxes went into effect.
Click to expand...

Simply not what you wrote in post #17. Lets have honest debate. Not a problem to make a mistake,but is when you try to deny it.
 
Cordelier said:
Revenues for this year are running at 16.1% of GDP... do you know when the last time a level like that would have balanced the budget? 1956!
Click to expand...

So it is all about revenue for you and never the abuse of the Congress on spending including social engineering which is state and local responsibilities? People keeping more of what they earn needs less of that so called liberal "help" so if now isn't the time to cut spending when is? The House is controlled by the Democrats, where are their spending cuts?
 
Conservative said:
So it is all about revenue for you and never the abuse of the Congress on spending including social engineering which is state and local responsibilities? People keeping more of what they earn needs less of that so called liberal "help" so if now isn't the time to cut spending when is? The House is controlled by the Democrats, where are their spending cuts?
Click to expand...

I never suggested it was all about revenue.... ideally, and when the economic conditions warrant it (ie, a 4% growth rate), I'd eventually like to see the Budget balance at about 19.5% of GDP - about where it balanced during Clinton's second term. That's going to require revenue increases and spending cuts.... but more on the revenue side - it's going to have to be about a 70-30 split.
 
Cordelier said:
I never suggested it was all about revenue.... ideally, and when the economic conditions warrant it (ie, a 4% growth rate), I'd eventually like to see the Budget balance at about 19.5% of GDP - about where it balanced during Clinton's second term. That's going to require revenue increases and spending cuts.... but more on the revenue side - it's going to have to be about a 70-30 split.
Click to expand...

Have you ever head a job or are you just a professional student who reads a lot of books? Revenue as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant as we have a private sector economy with Gov't tax revenue, the two are quite different. Economy growth rates also don't matter with a 22 trillion dollar economy, GDP dollars matter and Trump has increased GDP dollars two trillion in 2 years, Obama-4.2 trillion in 8 with gov't spending being quite a bit of that due to the 842 billion stimulus.

People keeping more of their money need less of that so called gov't help so if you really want to balance the budget cut spending especially on social programs returning them all to the states. The real problem is that with our over 4 trillion dollar federal budget most of it is entitlement/social spending(mandatory) whereas 30% is discretionary spending. Something has to give and that something is liberalism or spending in the name of compassion with a federal bureaucrat doing the spending which actually provides compassion to the bureaucrats along with power.
 
Conservative said:
Have you ever head a job or are you just a professional student who reads a lot of books? Revenue as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant as we have a private sector economy with Gov't tax revenue, the two are quite different. Economy growth rates also don't matter with a 22 trillion dollar economy, GDP dollars matter and Trump has increased GDP dollars two trillion in 2 years, Obama-4.2 trillion in 8 with gov't spending being quite a bit of that due to the 842 billion stimulus.

People keeping more of their money need less of that so called gov't help so if you really want to balance the budget cut spending especially on social programs returning them all to the states. The real problem is that with our over 4 trillion dollar federal budget most of it is entitlement/social spending(mandatory) whereas 30% is discretionary spending. Something has to give and that something is liberalism or spending in the name of compassion with a federal bureaucrat doing the spending which actually provides compassion to the bureaucrats along with power.
Click to expand...

Sure... shove it all on the states. So now a poor state like Mississippi - where the need for better education, better healthcare, and better opportunities are the greatest... they're the very same ones who can least afford it. Screw'em - they should have been born richer. That's brilliant, Connie. Meanwhile, over in Connecticut, where the needs aren't so great - they've got all kinds of money to spend on schools and healthcare and social programs. We need effective Federal programs to level the playing field and make sure everyone has the same opportunities - regardless of whether they were born in Mississippi or Connecticut. Give every kid that level playing field, and rest assured, the best and the brightest of them will rise to the top.

All of those years we lived with slavery or segregation... looked the other way and swept it under the carpet. Everything's honky-dory. Does it ever make you wonder how much talent we squandered as a nation just in the South alone? If you were a black man born in Georgia before the end of Jim Crow, you could have been the most brilliant man who ever lived. Given the right support and encouragement, you could have cured cancer or have been the next Einstein. You could have been America's Da Vinci. Wouldn't have mattered though, would it? You were born poor, and poor is what you were going to stay. Smartest sharecropper who ever lived.

Times changed, though... we've knocked down those racial barriers - now we need to do better on knocking down the income barriers... because just like being born rich is the surest way of becoming rich, being born poor is the surest way of remaining poor.
 
Cordelier said:
Sure... shove it all on the states. So now a poor state like Mississippi - where the need for better education, better healthcare, and better opportunities are the greatest... they're the very same ones who can least afford it. Screw'em - they should have been born richer. That's brilliant, Connie. Meanwhile, over in Connecticut, where the needs aren't so great - they've got all kinds of money to spend on schools and healthcare and social programs. We need effective Federal programs to level the playing field and make sure everyone has the same opportunities - regardless of whether they were born in Mississippi or Connecticut. Give every kid that level playing field, and rest assured, the best and the brightest of them will rise to the top.
Click to expand...

There's a reason the guy you're responding to would never in a million years trade in his federal Medicare to enroll in Texas's Medicaid program as part of some large-scale devolution revolution. He usually forgets to write it all out but what he really means is "return the social programs I'm not using to the states."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom