Federal Government to Receive Record REVENUES in 2013

[orangeblueorangeblue]

If we review the OP:

Federal Government to Receive Record REVENUES in 2013 Reply to Thread

Almost certainly true.

Originally Posted by madgator

but will still run close to a trillion dollar deficit

Almost certainly true.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

So what was the retort? An attempt to say that in 2013 dollars, the 2007 revenues were higher.

Now whether this is true or not (almost certainly will not be), it doesn't impact the central premise of the OP. If we adjust the deficit in 2007 to 2013 dollars, we come up not with $1T+, but $200B.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Yeah, as I said several times, I did not attribute that to the CBO documents.

Ok, let's go through the play-by-play.

You said:

BTW, the CBO estimates for the first four months of this year would put this year's receipts waaaaay above that estimate anyway, by an order of about $400B.

I said:

Let's have a link for that. If true, that is a good thing.

You said:

Yes, let me be your Google

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...BR_2013_01.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43915

Ok, so we have you making a claim, me asking for a link to verify you claim, and you providing me with links. So I look through the links and find that they clearly don't say what you said they say. THen I ask you a bunch of times what you think the CBO documents say. Now you are saying that you said several times that you did not attribute the 400 billion in increased revenues to the CBO docs you presented me when I asked you where you got the 400 billion number from.

So where are these 'several' times where you said that you did not attribute your 400 billion number to the CBO documents? You realize that we're in the middle of this thread and this stuff is pretty easy to verify. All I have to do is look at your posts and see you never said it.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I never attributed it to CBO. I don't understand why that's hard to understand.

But again, you're running from your deflections here.

Do you not agree that we are running extraordinary deficits? That's the central premise of the OP.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I never attributed it to CBO. I don't understand why that's hard to understand.

So when you said this:

BTW, the CBO estimates for the first four months of this year would put this year's receipts waaaaay above that estimate anyway, by an order of about $400B.

And then provided CBO links to support the claim, you weren't actually attributing it to CBO. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

So what was the retort? An attempt to say that in 2013 dollars, the 2007 revenues were higher.

Now whether this is true or not (almost certainly will not be), it doesn't impact the central premise of the OP. If we adjust the deficit in 2007 to 2013 dollars, we come up not with $1T+, but $200B.

it is slightly below.



Yes our budget is a mess and has been for decades with only one small brief respite, but the number provided in the original post is kind of like saying I am rich because I make 20 times more than the average person did in 1950, or that we are paying 15 times the taxes we should because revenues are 15 times what they were then. Inflation, population growth and economic growth are all relevant when looking at revenues, to only throw up a flat number is only telling a piece of the story.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Do you not agree that we are running extraordinary deficits? That's the central premise of the OP.

Yes, I agree, we are running very large deficits. Now do you not agree that CBO projected 2013 revenue is less than the revenue from 2007 in real, inflation adjusted terms? And is it ok with you that someone pointed that out? Or is that just a totally irrelevant piece of information when one is comparing revenues from 2 different years?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by oragator1

it is slightly below.



Yes our budget is a mess and has been for decades with only one small brief respite, but the number provided in the original post is kind of like saying I am rich because I make 20 times more than the average person did in 1950, or that we are paying 15 times the taxes we should because revenues are 15 times what they were then. Inflation, population growth and economic growth are all relevant when looking at revenues, to only throw up a flat number is only telling a piece of the story.

In other words, it is how to lie with statistics.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Now do you not agree that CBO projected 2013 revenue is less than the revenue from 2007 in real, inflation adjusted terms?

Possibly, possibly not. There was the initial projection from the CBO, a revised projection and there will likely be a Q3 projection. It could be close, but in all likelihood 2013 will be record revenue in relative dollars.

This information is only irrelevant because the primary point in the OP is that despite the highest (or just shy of the highest, just for you) revenue in history, we will end up with the second-highest or third-highest deficit in history. This makes going back to 2007 a particularly bad idea when you look at the adjusted deficit in that year compared to 2010-2013.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

[mastoidbone]

So to be clear--
With increased revenue and new taxes we still are no where near a decent budget ( decent means a deficit of 2-3% of GDP)---and Obama is against big cuts....oh dear.