Oct 11 2007

Surging Economy, Surging Tax Revenues

Published by at 9:30 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

When they start honestly writing the history of the Bush years they are going to find an amazing economic picture. After the hits of 9-11 decimated our financial markets and hobbled our transportation and tourism industries for a while, the Bush tax cuts ushered in an amazing period of a solidly growing economy, low unemployment, low inflation, and surging tax revenues. Right now the US federal budget deficit is rapidly approaching round off error in terms of what can be predicted 12-24 months out:

The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.

The administration credited the president’s tax cuts for helping generate record-breaking revenues but warned of an approaching “fiscal train wreck” unless Congress deals with unsustainable growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

When Bush leaves office the deficit will very close to gone. And he did it with tax cuts and patience. That will make it nearly impossible for the Dems to propose vast new spending initiatives. People will want to keep their money. Sadly, the Democrats can’t help themselves. That will make it even easier for the GOP to hold the White House with a Guiliani nomination. Unless of course the far right puts Hillary in office by staying home and pouting.

25 responses so far

25 Responses to “Surging Economy, Surging Tax Revenues”

  1. dhunter says:

    There will be no honesty in writing the history of the Bush years the Dems and MSM will not allow it just as there was no honesty from the Jamie Goerlic 9/11 commission thanks to Jamie and Sandy the burglar.

    To allow honesty would validate the war on terror and tax cuts and the Dem party will not let that happen.

    History books must be changed and our children indoctrinated by the NEA and teachers unions.

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    I agree tax cuts do work , but in this case some credit for the surge has to be given to the low interest rate environment which resulted in all the refi activity which put recovered equity into purchasing power and enabled other financial transactions.

  3. Terrye says:


    I think Bush will get as much credit from the MSM as he will from the right. They have done nothing but complain about his compassionate conservatism and spending for years.

  4. stevevvs says:

    They have done nothing but complain about his compassionate conservatism and spending for years.

    Is it un justified? Honestly?

    Do you associate the expansion of Government and thousands upon thousands of pork project add ons with Liberal principals or conservative principles?

    His Tax Cuts were a great thing, don’t get me wrong. But gee wizz, how could anyone with no bias in either direction look at, not only Bush, but the leadership of the Republicans in both branches of Congress, when they lead them, and honestly not pull your hair out?

    That is where for the life of me, I just don’t understand not only Terrye, but most others, including the host.

    If you look at the Republican Congress in The Clinton Years, and compare them to what they did when Bush got in office, the contrast is startling to anyone with an open and honest mind.

    In the Clinton years we held spending down very close to the inflation rate. When Bush got in office, we could not seem to control our selves at all.

    In the Clinton Years we had Pork Projects in the Hundreds per bill. In the Bush years those hundreds turned into thousands per bill.

    In the Clinton years we argued for smaller government. In the Bush years we grew government at a rate never before seen in the history of the republic.

    While the defecit is shrinking, and that is entirely due to the economic expansion, fueled by the tax RATE reductions, which brings in more revenue, we seem to want to ignore part of the reason the defecit went up in the first place!

    Even if we get the defecit to zero, our national debt continues to grow unabated.

    It seems if one could actually be honest here, once Bush was elected, Bush, Haster, and Frist, lost complete control of themselves. They talked the talk, but when it came to walking the walk, they were in wheelchairs. We had no Leadership at any of those levels when it came to spending and pork.

    I was so excited when Bush was elected. I liked his energy plan. I was thrilled to be finally going after our own sources of energy in Alaska and elsewhere. I agreed, we needed more power plants, more refineries, etc.

    I agreed, we needed to partially privatize Social Security, if not total privatization.

    The only thing I disagreed with was the pill popping program for the blue hair crowd. But gee, with all the other great stuff we were going to get, tax cuts, sensible energy programs, social security reform, fiscal governance, etc. how could I not vote for him?

    Tell me. out of all that great sounding retoric, exactly what was actually implimented?

    I must leave now, but honesty is in short supply at times here.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    Stevevvs, problem is that Frist never had the real majority needed to make those necessary changes. There were still too many liberal Republicans to vote with the Democrats against those things you and I wanted.

    Which emphasizes the importance of a very strong Republican majority based on good conservative but in the center principles; not those of the far right.

  6. AJStrata says:


    The sky is not falling. Yes, we need less pork. But we also need a strong coalition which the far right destroyed in a fit of frustration.

    The fact is the liberals are now running Congress because the far right self destructed. The sooner they take responsibility for their mistake the sooner things will get back on the right track.

  7. Soothsayer says:

    When Bush leaves office the deficit will very close to gone.

    You have now shown a TOTAL misunderstanding of the deficit, AJ. For one thing – all of the money spent – and to be spent – on the War in Iraq by supplemental bills is not included in deficit figures – the money spent is considered “off-budget”.

    To explain, this administration has continuously refused to tell the truth about spending. There is an ongoing deception about costs and their effect on the national debt. Appropriations for the war in Iraq are supplemental rather than regular, which means our military costs in Iraq are off-budget.

    Over 90 percent of the costs of the “war on terror” have been provided for in supplemental appropriations bills or as “emergency” funding. This is unprecedented is US history; wars have never before continued to be funded in this off-budget manner, as the Congressional Research Service revealed in a recent report. The budget deficits as reported simply do not address the true magnitude of the “actual” shortfall between income and spending. The “actual deficit” however, does go to another bottom line: the national debt.

    The term “deficit” means the particular short-fall during a particular “budget year.” While it’s true that there is an outside chance one of these years we will not run “in the red” – altho that’s extremely unlikely if we include supplemental off-budget spending on the war – the “national debt” – which is the accumulation of the particular annual deficits over time – has grown continuously during the Bush Administration.

    In September 2000, the national debt was $5,676,989,904,887.00 In October of 2007, the national debt stands at $9,052,188,716, 900.26, and continues to increase an average of $1.44 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

    The vast majority of the national debt was incurred during two specific 8 year time periods – the Reagan/Bush Administration, and the Bush/Cheney Administration.

  8. AJStrata says:

    LOL! nice try sooth! Ain’t working.

  9. WWS says:

    Whining about deficits is the canard libs pull out whenever they get frustrated with how enbelievably well the economy is doing.

    By any objective measure, this country is in the middle of the greatest economic boom in history. Economically, things have *never* been better than they are now, and it is amazing to see to what lengths many will go to try and hide that fact from themselves and others.

  10. Soothsayer says:

    LOL! nice try sooth! Ain’t working.

    Wow – quite a refutation of the numbers clearly showing an increase in the national debt of over THREE TRILLION DOLLARS under George W. Bush ($3,375,198,812,013.26).

    You can get up to date figures on the sum of all those deficits here!

  11. AJStrata says:


    We again are going to address your seriously lacking math skills. The deficit as a fraction of the budget and as a fractio of the GNP is what tells you if these are historical “high” levels. You need to account for infation. Do your math and check the percentage of the debt and deficits to these two numbers. You will find we are not at all time highs.

    Sucks being uneducated, doesn’t it?

  12. AJStrata says:


    Here, go educate thyself. Someone has done the fractions for you!


    Cheers, AJStrata

  13. Soothsayer says:

    AJ – you’re the guy whose math skills don’t allow him to convert inches to centimenters, not me.

    Did I say the national debt was some significant fractional amount of GNP??? Nope. That’s not my point.

    My point is the deficit is now over $9 TRILLION DOLLARS thanks in large part ($3 TRILLION +) to George W. Bush.

    Your point was that the “deficit” will be gone by the time Bush leaves office.

    1. If you’re talking about the “annual budget deficit” including war costs, I’ll bet you $1,000.00 you’re wrong.

    2. If you’re talking about the “national debt” as the sum of all those deficits, I’ll bet you $50,000.00 you’re wrong.

  14. lurker9876 says:

    And you won’t win any of the bets, sooth-copperhead.

  15. AJStrata says:


    So you don’t even UNDERSTAND the process of accounting for inflation. Sooth, if you went to the report I linked to you would find deficits and debts as a fraction of the Federal budget and national product were much higher under Clinton than under Bush. Check the source I sighted Sooth.

    It really does suck not having a well rounded education.

    BTW, you owe me $50K. The donation box is on the right side of the site at the top. Government numbers dude.

    I expect you to make good on your bet. Your reputation is on lthe line.

  16. AJStrata says:


    Maybe I underestimated your denseness. Being “off budget” means the money must be voted outside the annual budget outlines. It doesn’t mean the ‘discretionary’ spending is not included in the debt and deficit numbers.

    Did you just lose $51K because you did not understand what was meant by outside the budget (authorization) bills?

    Wow, that was a quick $50k.

  17. AJStrata says:

    Sooth, here are the definitions.


    Note deficits and debts relate to revenues and expenditures. Off-budget relates to legislative processes and applicable laws. But they are still expenditures.

    Hope you are good for that $50K.

  18. Soothsayer says:

    Hate to say this AJ – but you’re just being downright stupid on this.

    1. The $50,000 bet is that you win if the national debt is reduced to “Zero” by the time Bush leaves office. I win if the national debt is “$1.00” or more at that time. I don’t care how you jiggle the numbers – that ain’t happening.

    2. Off budget spending on the Iraq war is NOT included in the deficit numbers released by the Bush Administration. If you think otherwise – then put a link and prove it.

    My sources, among them the Heritage Foundation, state clearly that Federal off-budget spending is spending or lending that, by law is not counted as part of the regular budget and thus does not appear in “the deficit “.

    See, also, Shots Across the Bow:

    I’d actually be more impressed with the falling deficit if war spending was included, instead of being kept off budget. Being a simple minded libertarian, I look at the yearly change in the national debt to determine the true annual deficit. This way I don’t have to worry about fancy accounting tricks that make it look like we have a balanced budget when we really don’t.

    He continues:

    Looking at historical data, I see that the National Debt went up every year during the Clinton administration. Clinton’s first budget was for the fiscal year ending 9/30/1994 and it resulted in an increase in the national debt of $280 billion. The debt climbs every year, although for the fiscal year ending 9/30/2000, the debt rose by a relatively small $10 billion. In all, over 8 years, Clinton added $1.8 trillion to the national debt, an increase of 41%. In comparison, over 5 years, Bush has added $2.7 trillion, an increase of 46%.

    And there are still three more budget years to go. To be fair, I haven’t accounted for inflation, and there is a war going on, but pardon me if I don’t get excited by a declining deficit that’s created by cooking the books when the actual debt is still climbing by roughly a half a trillion dollars a year.

    See, also, AMOSWeb.com, an economics information site, which says:

    Some federal government spending items are “off budget”, which means they are not be included in THE budget deficit calculations.

    So sorry you don’t understand the numbers you blog about so freely, but unless you’ve got some sources that prove otherwise, I will continue to assert that your rosy scenarios about falling deficits fail to include the billions, nay trillions, that will be spent on the Iraq War. And which WILL be added to the national debt.

  19. “My point is the ,b>deficit is now over $9 TRILLION DOLLARS thanks in large part ($3 TRILLION +) to George W. Bush. ”


    Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Leftist Traitor Cus-Omacian Nutbag!

    That’s YOU “Bootlicker”!

    That’s a DIRECT quote of YOURS above!

    Nutbag: The “deficit” is NOT $9Trillion; that is the NATIONAL DEBT Fool!

    THE NATIONAL DEBT is the Bigger number, Moron!

    The Annual “Budget DEFICIT” is what AJ’s talking about!

    How can anyone take anything you say seriously, when you don’t even understand the terms your posting about!

    And you have no excuse, you have your Google-tise to rely on!


  20. And ONCE AGAIN, Dale CRUSHES the Lying, Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Leftist, Traitor, Nutbag, Cus-Omac, “BOOTLICKER”!

    AJ, collect your money, and IF he doesn’t pay; sue him!

    From this site:

    Deficits and surpluses
    If outlays exceed receipts in a given period (usually a fiscal year), the difference is referred to as a deficit. Otherwise, the difference is a surplus. Of course, the size of the reported deficit or surplus depends on which items are included in the underlying budget. Currently, the deficit reported is based on both on- and off-budget items; if the Social Security surplus (which is nominally off-budget) is excluded, the deficit is considerably larger.


    You lying, Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Leftist Nutbag Traitor Cus-Omac; THAT’S PRETTY CLEAR; even to someone with a Pre-K reading comphrension level, as yourself!


    Weasel you’re way out this one, you little traitor slimeball!