No more government - boo hoo!

[classicman]

I found these while doing my taxes. Pretty dramatic changes in only two years.




ETA - I forgot to add the totals ...

In fiscal year 2007 federal income was $2.568 trillion and outlays were $2.730 trillion, leaving a deficit of $.162 trillion.

In fiscal year 2009 federal income was $2.105 trillion and outlays were $3.518 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.413 trillion.

[TheMercenary]

Interesting in your graph, National defense spending went down.

[glatt]

Only as a percentage. In other words, the pie got bigger, but the chart doesn't show that.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Only as a percentage. In other words, the pie got bigger, but the chart doesn't show that.

Yes, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did that for us. Made it grow exponentially....

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yes, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did that for us. Made it grow exponentially....

As to the charts above, the FY 2009 budget was the last Bush budget, one that he submitted to Congress in Feb 08 and which the bottom line of about $3 trillion was retained by the Democratic Congress, with only line item changes, including reducing defense spending and raising spending on some safety net programs in light of onset of the worst recession in our lifetime.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Only as a percentage. In other words, the pie got bigger, but the chart doesn't show that.

But I did offer that information as well.

In fiscal year 2007 federal income was $2.568 trillion and outlays were $2.730 trillion, leaving a deficit of $.162 trillion.

In fiscal year 2009 federal income was $2.105 trillion and outlays were $3.518 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.413 trillion.

The amount of borrowing on the income side was the largest change.

@ F&B - I thought congress was in charge of spending? When did this become a presidential issue?

[richlevy]

Reminder: TARP was authorized under Bush II.

2007 also included a lot of budget trickery centered around war spending.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...dgets-for-war/

[classicman]

What does that have to do with the point made?

Tarp was 2008 and has been almost, if not entirely paid back.

“The TARP is probably the most effective large-scale government program that the public has vehemently decided was a bad idea, and, therefore, has only the most tepid political defenders,” said the Brookings Institution’s Douglas Elliott.”

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

But I did offer that information as well.

Yeah, you did. I was just trying to clarify. It looked like Merc was reading the chart wrong and taking the wrong message from it. It's not that defense went down, it's that other spending went up.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

But I did offer that information as well.


The amount of borrowing on the income side was the largest change.

@ F&B - I thought congress was in charge of spending? When did this become a presidential issue?

Congress appropriates the money.

The Executive Branch spends the money and the outlays in the chart represent the amount of money spent.

Do you have a cite for the chart? I dont think it presents a complete picture, unless it was detailed in a narrative that was not included.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

What does that have to do with the point made?

Tarp was 2008 and has been almost, if not entirely paid back.

TARP was signed into law by Bush in Oct 08 and the funds were almost entirely spent in FY 09 and not recovered until FY 10 and 11. So the outlay was part of the 09 increase in outlay and the income (funds repaid) didnt show up until the next year.

I'm pretty sure it was TARP, along with higher social spending as a result of the first surge of newly unemployed (increased UI, increased SNAP claims, etc) that account for the increased outlays.

The decrease in income is most likely a result of the fact that the Bush 03 tax cut was phased in over five years, with the highest income bracket lowered as the last phase in 2008. So I suspect the 2009 revenue was much lower, because the 2008 returns were the first year that the top bracket paid a 3% lower marginal rate.

But more information is needed.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Do you have a cite for the chart?

Look at your 1040 booklet - that's where I got it. I found the images using the online versions. They were on page 97 for '09.
'07 - http://web.bus.ucf.edu/faculty/ckell...ral_budget.pdf

[Fair&Balanced]

Thanks.

But it still does not provide enough detailed information to make any useful comparisons between FY 07 and FY 09 w/o more specific budget information.

I would still maintain that most of the the increase in FY outlays between the two years is due to TARP and other outlays related to the the onset of the recession and the decrease in income was due to the full implementation of the 03 tax cuts and other decreases related to the onset of the recession (lots more unemployed among the middle class = less revenue from income taxes).

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Thanks.

It wasn't meant as a detailed analysis of anything. It does show how 40% of our income is borrowed for nothing other than to cover the deficit. THAT cannot continue.

I was also surprised to see that we are paying so much less on the debt. I surmise that is because of a combination of we have less to put towards it & it has grown so much larger.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

It wasn't meant as a detailed analysis of anything. It does show how 40% of our income is borrowed for nothing other than to cover the deficit. THAT cannot continue.

I agree.

The issue is how we address it.

Either through spending cuts only or a combination of spending cuts and revenue (tax) increases.

IMO, the spending cuts only approach proposed by the Republicans disproportionately impact the middle class and working poor. A fairer approach would be a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases that spread the impact across every income bracket.

And the argument that tax increases on the top 1% and/or corporations will kill jobs and hurt the recovery cannot be supported by facts. There is no evidence that trickle down economics works.