Federal Government to Receive Record REVENUES in 2013

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

That is not what the document says.

What's it say then?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

It doesn't say this:

but federal revenues in 2013 will be around 1.5 percent less than they were in 2007.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

It doesn't say this:

No, I agree it doesn't. But was does it say?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

If the current increase of 12% holds for the entire year, revenues in 2013 would be 2743 billion, which is 35 billion above the projection, not 400 billion. But thanks for the links.

It also doesn't say this.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

So you're 0-for-2 so far.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

It also doesn't say this.

No, I agree it doesn't say that, I said that. It says revenues are up 12% over last year. If that increase holds, revenues for 2013 would be 2743. I said that, based on the data in your link.

Now where does it say that revenues will be around 400 billion higher than projected?

[dangolegators]

By this way this,

but federal revenues in 2013 will be around 1.5 percent less than they were in 2007.

refers to revenue as a percentage of GDP. If the projections hold, it would be around 17% of GDP. In 2007 revenue was 18.5% of GDP. Are you not able to understand this either?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

By this way this,



refers to revenue as a percentage of GDP. If the projections hold, it would be around 17% of GDP. In 2007 revenue was 18.5% of GDP. Are you not able to understand this either?

This takes us back to "massaging" data to say something completely different. And it's another meaningless metric anyway.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

This takes us back to "massaging" data to say something completely different. And it's another meaningless metric anyway.

Um, you are the one who referenced it, even though it has nothing to do with the question I have repeatedly asked you and that you have not answered.

And you'll need to tell economists everywhere that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric.

[dangolegators]

Can you tell me where it says revenues are on pace to be 400B higher than projected?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

And you'll need to tell economists everywhere that federal revenue as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric.

Well, I am an economist by trade, so I'll get started on that.

Typically, spending as a percentage of GDP is referenced as a meaningful metric, not revenue. There tends to, you know, be a fairly predictable trend with the latter.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Well, I am an economist by trade, so I'll get started on that.

Typically, spending as a percentage of GDP is referenced as a meaningful metric, not revenue. There tends to, you know, be a fairly predictable trend with the latter.

I am very surprised that you are an economist. I never would have thought that. You have a PhD? But do get started telling your fellow economists that spending as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric for comparing spending across years as opposed to using nominal spending.

Now can you tell me about the 400 billion in additional revenues that you say we are on pace for according to the CBO doc?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Now can you tell me about the 400 billion in additional revenues that you say we are on pace for according to the CBO doc?

It wasn't according to the CBO document, it was a YOY comparison from 12->13 given a 12%-15% increase in revenues over the original estimates.

But do get started telling your fellow economists that spending as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric for comparing spending across years as opposed to using nominal spending.

So you cannot read?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Let me write it again for you: federal spending as a % of GDP is the metric that's considered to have meaning. Barring major changes in taxation, federal receipts as a % of GDP is fairly predictable.

[SydneySLee]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

And how much of that growth is as a result of increases in medicare and medicaid?

Everything you want is here:

OMB Historical Tables

For both revenue and expenditures.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

It wasn't according to the CBO document, it was a YOY comparison from 12->13 given a 12%-15% increase in revenues over the original estimates.

What were the original estimates? Are you basing it on that fictional 2902 billion from Obama's budget that wasn't passed? The 2902 that we have debunked as a current estimate of 2013 revenues? If so, the CBO docs you linked most definitely don't say that.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Let me write it again for you: federal spending as a % of GDP is the metric that's considered to have meaning. Barring major changes in taxation, federal receipts as a % of GDP is fairly predictable.

You got an links or citations that will show other economists feel as you do? That spending as a percentage of GDP is important but revenues as a percentage of GDP isn't? Revenues fluctuate with the economy as much or more than spending does. So are you going to say that deficits as a percentage of GDP are meaningless too? Because revenues are half of the deficit equation.

You're just making stuff up.

[madgator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

You got an links or citations that will show other economists feel as you do? That spending as a percentage of GDP is important but revenues as a percentage of GDP isn't? Revenues fluctuate with the economy as much or more than spending does. So are you going to say that deficits as a percentage of GDP are meaningless too? Because revenues are half of the deficit equation.

You're just making stuff up.

I see a lot of statements without links from you......

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

If so, the CBO docs you linked most definitely don't say that.

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

Revenues fluctuate with the economy as much or more than spending does.

Yes, and in that case they are generally equally represented in GDP, whereas spending does not necessarily follow that pattern. In other words, it rarely tells you something you didn't already know.

You're just making stuff up.

This is comically ironic.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I don't speak for economists. I only had one job in the field and it was about 8 years ago.