[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Not that steadily. Starting with 1996 as a base, the rise (in trillions) each year is .0, 1, .0, .1, .1, .1, .2, .1, .1, .3, .1, .1, .2, .5, .2, -.1

That's not an accurate picture, however. You see Bush hid the wars in "Supplemental Appropriations". That's around $0.2 trillion that was being spent but didn't show up "on the books" until the Obama administration.

It sounds like you are saying we should look at how spending changed since 1996 (actually I'd suggest 1999, which was our surplus year), which is what I've been saying.

Sure.

Really? Cause I see something like a 20% drop in revenue, assuming a steady GDP: more with a falling GDP (from about 21% of GDP in 2000 to about 17% of GDP in 2003)

Here's the CBO specifically on the Bush tax cuts:

Thats because there was a tax cut... 05-08 had a revenue very consistent with the %. And unless your telling me that there were huge tax between 08 and 09, then I fail to see your point. The revenue missed out in 2003 doesn't seem relevant to todays problem.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Thats because there was a tax cut... 05-08 had a revenue very consistent with the %. And unless your telling me that there were huge tax between 08 and 09, then I fail to see your point. The revenue missed out in 2003 doesn't seem relevant to todays problem.

05-08 was under the same cuts.

The question at hand was comparing 2000 to 2011. Where are the differences?

Per the CBO (and anyone looking), they are the reduction in income from the Bush tax cuts, the increase in defense spending, and the increase in SS/Medicare.

Your (falsely) claimed that the Bush cuts do not have a significant impact. Via three different methods (simple compare, compare of income to GDP, and CBO reports), I have shown that claim to be false.

Even without accounting for the wars: the rise in spending under Bush was 1 trillion over 8 years (more than .1 trillion per year rise). Under Clinton's average rate of rise: that would have taken 20 years, not eight.

That's just spending not income, that doesn't count the wars (.3 to .5 trillion), and that doesn't account for the drop in GDP. Looking at any of those factors makes it look worse still (though looking at inflation mitigates it *a bit*).

As of the 2008 budget (and I'll include supplemental here), spending was +1.3 trillion from the 2000 budget. (Almost all defense, Social Security, and Medical costs), and revenue was down (a mixture of of GDP and, very quantifiably, reduced taxes on the rich).

Those trends continue up to 2011, throwing in the (self terminating or I'd be arguing to terminate) TARP and stimulus programs.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

05-08 was under the same cuts.

The question at hand was comparing 2000 to 2011. Where are the differences?

Per the CBO (and anyone looking), they are the reduction in income from the Bush tax cuts, the increase in defense spending, and the increase in SS/Medicare.

Your (falsely) claimed that the Bush cuts do not have a significant impact. Via three different methods (simple compare, compare of income to GDP, and CBO reports), I have shown that claim to be false.

Even without accounting for the wars: the rise in spending under Bush was 1 trillion over 8 years (more than .1 trillion per year rise). Under Clinton's average rate of rise: that would have taken 20 years, not eight.

That's just spending not income, that doesn't count the wars (.3 to .5 trillion), and that doesn't account for the drop in GDP. Looking at any of those factors makes it look worse still (though looking at inflation mitigates it *a bit*).

As of the 2008 budget (and I'll include supplemental here), spending was +1.3 trillion from the 2000 budget. (Almost all defense, Social Security, and Medical costs), and revenue was down (a mixture of of GDP and, very quantifiably, reduced taxes on the rich).

Those trends continue up to 2011, throwing in the (self terminating or I'd be arguing to terminate) TARP and stimulus programs.

What reduction of income? The governments revenues for 2010 and 2011 are consistent with the 30 year average of revenue as a percent of GDP (+ or minus 2%). Revenues for 2010 were approx $140 billion higher than they were in 2000. There is no definitive way to tell how much higher they could have been if there were no tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Government calculators do not take into account the wealthy's avoidance of taxes. What there is definitive proof of is that spending has increased 1.3 trillion dollars (your numbers). That is the significant reason there is a deficit so huge.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

What reduction of income?

The reduction introduced with the Bush tax cuts.

The governments revenues for 2010 and 2011 are consistent with the 30 year average of revenue as a percent of GDP (+ or minus 2%).

00 was 21%, 10 is 16%, that's a revenue loss (given an unchanging GDP) of 25% of all revenue.



Now: GDP hasn't actually been flat; it rose until 2007


If you look here: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

You'll see that the actual revenue in adjusted dollars in 2000 was $2.31T. In the 10 years since, only two (2006 and 2007: the height of several financial bubbles) have bested it.

Revenues for 2010 were approx $140 billion higher than they were in 2000.

I have not found those numbers to be available. The prediction was $1.92T in 2005 adjusted dollars: which would be -$400B from 2000.

There is no definitive way to tell how much higher they could have been if there were no tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Government calculators do not take into account the wealthy's avoidance of taxes.

You say this: but you simultaneously argue the "they had no real effect" position. These statements are incompatible. Either you know what the effect was or you do not.

The CBO seems reasonably clear on the effect.

What there is definitive proof of is that spending has increased 1.3 trillion dollars (your numbers). That is the significant reason there is a deficit so huge.

I agree. ($1.14 trillion in 2005 -standard dollars)

Unless we say "social security tax isn't for social security": we find that SS has not been running a deficit until this year (the income from the social security tax exceeds the outlay of the SSA), and has not yet run a debt (in fact: much of our general debt is *to* social security).

The other two places expenses have gone up considerably are defense and health.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by normajean777

from wikipedia:



Its kind of sick that it goes up that steadily. The budget more than doubled in 15 years, and then we look at cuts, and all anybody has to say to any idea is "we can't cut this because....". The government went without spending that additional 2.2 trillion dollars (2010 budget for 2011) in 1996, what so wrong with the country back then without such an increase in spending?

Shouldn't the budget increase over time? Inflation, population, GDP all rising should mean bigger budget since they must meet the needs/serve more people.

Spending more than you make is a problem though.