Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
YTD through May '06 tax reciepts to the federal government are up 12.9% over last year. The '05 increase over '04 was 15.5%.
The '06 deficit through May was $227 billion, down from $273 billion during the same period last year, even with spending being up $130 billion or 7.9%.
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projects a total '06 deficit of $300 billion or about 2.1% of GDP.
At one point the '04 deficit was forcast at $521 billion, the actual came in at $412 billion. It fell to $318 billion in '05...........
Those making over $200k/yr now pay 46.6% of total income taxes. That is up from 40.5%.
Corporate tax collections are up 30% from last years pace.
Now we need Washington to get spending under control and find a solution to Social Security and Medicare........
|
aceventura3, hasn't the federal debt actually increased by
$2,125246,249,523.44, (that's $2.125 TRILLION) since the first Bush administration sponsored budget year began, between Sept. 29, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2005? (a span of 48 months.....)
And....wasn't the total federal deficit for fiscal year 2005, which ended on
Sept. 30, 2005, actually in the amount of $553,656,965,393?
If you'll agree that this amount, a figure that is actually $235 billion higher than the $318 billion fiscal year 2005 deficit that you quoted, was "spent", what is your opinion on the "stimulative effect" of federal spending that increased the treasury debt by an average $531 billion in each of the last 4 years.....on the economy and on amounts of personal income and on corporate taxes collected ?
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/28/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06
____________________
$2,125246,249,523.44 = 48 months total federal deficit
<b>Vs.</b>
Total Deficit Spending in the 4 fisscal years prior to 9/28/2001=
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
___________________
$ 394,317,400,802.72 48 months total federal deficit
Are you saying that "off-budget" deficit spending by the federal government does not effect GDP growth and the growth in tax collection, in a way that is similar to the "stimulus" of tax cuts or of "on budget" deficit spending?
Quote:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
<b>The Debt To the Penny</b>
......Prior Fiscal
Years
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 Increase = $553,656,965,393
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
|
<b>How about the effect of the economic "stimulus" of</b> <a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2005/12/gdp-growth-with-and-without-mortgage.html">"MEW" ?</a>
<center><center><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/243/2888/640/GDPMEW.jpg">
Quote:
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/3091/a...le-u-turn.html
Alan Greenspan’s Property Bubble U-Turn
10.04.2005
.......But on another level, it reveals the full force of one of the key drivers of the Asset Economy – equity extraction from residential property.
According to the Greenspan-Kennedy framework, US homeowners tapped the ever-expanding home equity till to the tune of about $600bn in 2004 – <b>equivalent to about 7% of disposable personal income, or more than double the 3% share recorded in 2000.........</b>
|
Column #23 in the page at the following link, shows quarterly "MEW" figures from Q2 1990 thru Q2 2005:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f...eds200541.html
See Column 2) 1-4 mortgage debt outstanding, end of quarter (FOF)
2001 Q3 5,506.5 2005 Q2 8,528.4
Quote:
equity extraction, or "MEW" 4RD qTR. '01 THRU 2ND qTR. '05 In Billions of Dollars:
05Q2 138.4
05Q1 121.0
04Q4 126.9
04Q3 206.3
04Q2 119.1
04Q1 146.3
03Q4 85.5
03Q3 122.6
03Q2 125.7
03Q1 105.6
02Q4 112.1
02Q3 120.2
02Q2 98.7
02Q1 66.7
01Q4 59.1
01Q3 69.7
16 Qtr. total= $1823.9 billion
|
Quote:
equity extraction, or "MEW" 3rd qTR. '97 THRU 2ND qTR. '01 In Billions of Dollars:
01Q2 87.7
01Q1 45.0
00Q4 40.3
00Q3 62.3
00Q2 70.2
00Q1 31.3
99Q4 42.4
99Q3 77.3
99Q2 52.4
99Q1 44.1
98Q4 59.4
98Q3 40.6
98Q2 42.9
98Q1 39.8
97Q4 8.5
97Q3 53.6
16 Qtr. total= $797.8 billion
|
I'll concede that, for comparison here, we cannot quantify the "stock market wealth" during the tech stock "bubble" that peaked in March, 2000, that was injected into the economy via the conversion of stock "gains" into actual equity that flowed into the GDP spending stimuli, as we more easily can with federal deficit spending and with "MEW". Folks do not take "mortgage equity withdrawals" and "park" the proceeds in savings accounts, for the most part.
Those funds arw mostly used to "pay down" credit card and car loan debt, to remodel the home, pay college tuition, or to generally increase living standards, via vacations, purchases of second homes, or restaurant meals.
I've demonstrated that in the 48 months prior to Sept. 28, 2001, federal deficit spending of $394,317,400,802.72 combined with "MEW" of $797.8 billion, totalled $1.192 trillion, and in the 48 months after Sept. 28, 2001, federal deficit spending of $2,125246,249,523.44 combined with "MEW" of $1823.9 billion, totalled $3.948 trillion.
My point is that I see no point to the core premise of this thread, because, on average, the increase in fiscal stimulation that was added to the economy, via increased federal deficit spending, combined with increased "MEW", in the 48 months before Sept. 30, 2005, was $2.756 trillion greater than in the 48 month period before Sept. 28, 2001. The effect of Bush era "tax cut" policy, diluted by a $2.756 trillion spending "injection", in the four year period, should produce a positive effect on federal revenue streams from personal income and corporate taxes, but it seems disingenuous and rather one sided to try to "credit" the same folks who managed our treasury into a huge new deficit amount, for increases in the amount of taxes collected in the same period, or with deficit "reduction" that simply places part of the increasing debt, "off budget".
This week, the news media reported that there have been 9 "off budget" appropriations approved by our elected federal officials for war expenses and disaster relief. There were also defeated proposals to actually budget for Pentagon war expenses. If that happened, it would be impossible for claims to be made that falsely imply that the rate of new federal borrowing is "dropping"....the actual increase in total debt proves that this is not true.