Is lack of federal revenue the problem with the deficit? No. (unemployment, Congress)

[DRob4JC]

Chart 1 - Tax Revenues



Note Bush tax cuts increased revenue until the recession kicked in and unemployment increased and the left took over Congress. Tax revenues were at all time highs during the Bush years - both individual and corporate.

Chart 2 - Tax Revenues vs. Spending



Since the left took over Congress, spending and revenues have went in opposite directions.

We will almost have to double revenues to match the current spending levels. Tax increases will not do that.

Also - spending has NEVER decreased in almost 50 years. This is unsustainable.

This is not a revenue problem. Raising taxes will not solve over-spending problems.

[padcrasher]

Population USA 1965 100 Million.

Population USA 2010 300 Million.

And his argument is that the Goverment's budget tripled.....LOL......................Per capita spending is essentially the same since 1965....LOL

[the material writes itself....lol ....literally]

[EinsteinsGhost]

Economy has tripled since 1965.

[padcrasher]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Economy has tripled since 1965.

Goverment spending as a percent of GDP would take that into account.

But he can't spread misinformation with this graph.

CRimages: Government Spending as Percent of GDP

[padcrasher]

Do a comparison of 1965 to 2010 in real dollars...but just convert the 2010 units to Pesos....that would make a scary graph......LOL

[le roi]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Note Bush tax cuts increased revenue until the recession kicked in

How do you know it was the tax cuts that increased revenue?

It could have been any number of policy decisions that nominally increased tax revenues.... devaluation of the currency comes to mind, or the fact that we were building $500,000 houses, printing money out of thin air, and giving it to any random jackass who could sign his name. Building all those houses for people who can't afford them may be malinvestment, but in the short-term it is still technically tax-generating economic activity.

This is not a revenue problem.

You're right, the deficit is a result of a monetary problem, a political problem, a moral problem, an education problem, a psychological problem, a sociological problem, you name it... but it isn't a revenue problem.

Yet, although the problem is not with revenues, the solution may need to be.

[Majin]

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

Population USA 1965 100 Million.

Population USA 2010 300 Million.

And his argument is that the Goverment's budget tripled.....LOL......................Per capita spending is essentially the same since 1965....LOL

[the material writes itself....lol ....literally]

Actually, that's a good point with regards to tax revenues. Regarding spending, not so much.

[slimkay]

Not sure if OP is serious...

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Note Bush tax cuts increased revenue until the recession kicked in and unemployment increased and the left took over Congress. Tax revenues were at all time highs during the Bush years - both individual and corporate.

I'd missed this "right wing" gem of an argument. Now, let us look at the numbers from the aforementioned Bush years. Total tax revenue, in 2005 dollars and as a percentage of GDP, over 15 years:
1996: $1.78 T (18.8% of GDP)
1997: $1.89 T (19.2% of GDP)
1998: $2.04 T (19.9% of GDP)
1999: $2.14 T (19.8% of GDP)
2000: $2.31 T (20.6% of GDP)
2001: $2.22 T (19.5% of GDP)
2002: $2.03 T (17.6% of GDP)
2003: $1.90 T (16.2% of GDP)
2004: $1.95 T (16.1% of GDP)
2005: $2.16 T (17.3% of GDP)
2006: $2.32 T (18.2% of GDP)
2007: $2.41 T (18.5% of GDP)
2008: $2.29 T (17.5% of GDP)
2009: $1.90 T (14.9% of GDP)
2010: $1.92 T (14.9% of GDP)

It took FIVE years to get the tax revenue to the same level where it was in 2000 and "the glory" was short lived. So, your perception has a major issue.