Tax Revenue Takes Biggest Dive Since Great Depression
Posted Aug 3, 2009

US tax revenue is set to shrink 18% from last fiscal year to the current one, ending in October—the largest falloff since 1932, the AP reports. Individual income-tax receipts are off 22%, and corporate revenues have sunk an astounding 57%. “Our tax system is already inadequate to support the promises our government has made,” one analyst says. “This just adds to the problem.”

While Social Security tax revenue has sunk only slightly, the poor economic climate could mean the already troubled institution runs out of money almost a decade ahead of projections. “The numbers for 2009 are striking, head-snapping. But what really matters is what happens next. If the economy doesn't recover soon, it doesn’t matter what your social, economic and political agenda is.”

—Harry Kimball
Source: Associated Press

I'm not sure "head snapping" even covers it.

A billion is only pocket change now. Congress doesn't worry about billions anymore. Cash for clunkers is the perfect example of that. Could be the start of "sub prime" in the auto industry. Remember how good that turned out in the housing industry? Auto foreclosures (repos) coming soon....

To ever make a dent in the deficit the US would have to freeze current government spending forever. An idea that was passed on long time ago.

Or every citizen (man,woman,child) just coughs up $38,051.29. And do it today because by tomorrow it will be more!!!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

So, with 18% less revenue our government's direction is increased spending. Have you ever spent your way out of debt??? Exactly.

Tax Revenue Takes Biggest Dive Since Great Depression
Posted Aug 3, 2009

US tax revenue is set to shrink 18% from last fiscal year to the current one, ending in October—the largest falloff since 1932, the AP reports. Individual income-tax receipts are off 22%, and corporate revenues have sunk an astounding 57%. “Our tax system is already inadequate to support the promises our government has made,” one analyst says. “This just adds to the problem.”

While Social Security tax revenue has sunk only slightly, the poor economic climate could mean the already troubled institution runs out of money almost a decade ahead of projections. “The numbers for 2009 are striking, head-snapping. But what really matters is what happens next. If the economy doesn't recover soon, it doesn’t matter what your social, economic and political agenda is.”

—Harry Kimball
Source: Associated Press

I'm not sure "head snapping" even covers it.

A billion is only pocket change now. Congress doesn't worry about billions anymore. Cash for clunkers is the perfect example of that. Could be the start of "sub prime" in the auto industry. Remember how good that turned out in the housing industry? Auto foreclosures (repos) coming soon....

To ever make a dent in the deficit the US would have to freeze current government spending forever. An idea that was passed on long time ago.

Or every citizen (man,woman,child) just coughs up $38,051.29. And do it today because by tomorrow it will be more!!!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

So, with 18% less revenue our government's direction is increased spending. Have you ever spent your way out of debt??? Exactly.

Hi there, Crick. I'm the Ghost of Christmas Past. Do the words "You're doing a heck of job, Brownie" ring any bells? How about Cheney's "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter"?? Bush's spending 490 days at his ranch on vacation during his 8 years and another 487 at Camp David, while his administration took a budget surplus handed to him by a president who added 1 trillion dollars to the national debt, compared he added over _5_ trillion?

Yes? No?

BTW, cute picture. Do keep it up. My other two incarnations like watching the voters deliver a good Scrooging to the 'BAH, HUMBUG!' crowd as much as the next "See, I told you So" ghost.

-Kerrrrrrrrrrrry Ooooooooooooh

As soon as we clean up Junior and his rubber stamp, spineless jellyfish Republican congress's mess, then we can turn our attention to fixing our budget problems. As incredible as this may sound, there are bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Seriously dude? I thought you were better than this.

The damage caused by 8 years of incompetency in the White House(that's as kind as I can be) is not going to be repaired overnight.

How about the damage from 95 years of the fed or the 75 years of handouts since the new deal?

Stop blaming a failure that has been building for a century on 8 years. Don't be one of the ignorant that refuses to look past the tip of their nose into what was really going on.

Hi there, Crick. I'm the Ghost of Christmas Past. Do the words "You're doing a heck of job, Brownie" ring any bells? How about Cheney's "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter"?? Bush's spending 490 days at his ranch on vacation during his 8 years and another 487 at Camp David, while his administration took a budget surplus handed to him by a president who added 1 trillion dollars to the national debt, compared he added over _5_ trillion?

Yes? No?

BTW, cute picture. Do keep it up. My other two incarnations like watching the voters deliver a good Scrooging to the 'BAH, HUMBUG!' crowd as much as the next "See, I told you So" ghost.

-Kerrrrrrrrrrrry Ooooooooooooh

The damage caused by 8 years of incompetency in the White House(that's as kind as I can be) is not going to be repaired overnight.

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year YearEnding National Debt Deficit

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

I see. So instead of mainstream media that has to vet its stories with fact-checking, we're to buy into something from a website called "Common Sense Conservatism" from some guy Craig Steiner that NOBODY has ever even heard of, and from the Internet, a source you yourself say can't be trusted?

It's intellectually dishonest to say that Bush's budget didn't start until 9 months into his term, but then to lambaste Obama right off the starting blocks.

Too often the Far Right gets caught in its own lies. A few weeks ago one of these same right wing pundits said that nobody was blaming Obama for the stock market tanking in March. It was on a mainstream media show with people representing both sides, and it took them no time at all to produce quotes from Sean Hannity in March doing JUST THAT! The right-wing pundit was forced to recant.

It's also intellectually dishonest to interchange the terms "budget deficit" and "national debt" to spin the figures. There are mutually agreed upon accounting techniques that the GAO and both sides use to compare apples to apples. Be consistent or don't bother.

Then there's the little gambit that GWB ran on, that of saying that budget surpluses were intolerable wastes of the tax payer's money and that if he were elected president he would give it back the people to spend. Instead, he only gave the lion's share back to the wealthiest of tax payers. He said something to the effect that he'd do what he did as governor of Texas when it ran a budget surplus-- cut taxes and give it back.

If there was no surplus, what was he talking about?

So instead of heading a tax-and-spend administration, cut taxes and just kept on spending and spending and spending. And had Cheney tell the American people with a straight face "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter."

-Kerry O.

A source I say can't be trusted - ah, show me that so called quote of mine.

Maybe you should look at the following to understand the difference....

Q: What is the difference between the Debt and the Deficit?

A: The National Debt is the total amount of money owed by the government; the federal budget deficit is the yearly amount by which spending exceeds revenue. Add up all the deficits (and subtract those few budget surpluses we've had) for the past 200+ years and you'll get the current National Debt.

Politicians love to crow "The deficit is down! The deficit is down!" like it's a great accomplishment. Don't be fooled. Reducing the deficit just means we're adding less to the Debt this year than we did last year. Big deal -- we're still adding to the Debt. When are we going to start seeing the Debt actually go down?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Where is the spin on that one?

And the lambasting is over Obama's proposed enormous increases in both the national debt and yearly deficits on nearly a 20% drop in tax revenue.

Of course, if you can charge champagne while drink Cocoa Cola???
Yeah, right....fundamentally fiscal responsibility.

How ironic it was to see that our government was so concerned about the debt our banks have.....

The US National Debt could soon very well be the next world crisis.

President Bush has nearly doubled the national debt during his eight years in the White House. As he prepares to return to Texas next month, Mr. Bush is on track to add $5 trillion to the $5.73 trillion national debt he inherited when he took office. According to Treasury Department data, the number was $10.66 trillion at the end of November, and it has been rising at an astronomical rate.

The damage caused by 8 years of incompetency in the White House(that's as kind as I can be) is not going to be repaired overnight.

Interesting..

The democrats controlled the House from 1947 until 1995.

They controlled the Senate from 1949 to 1953. 1955 to 1981. 1987 to 1994..

Reagan's tripling of the national debt, obviously, was acceptable to the democrat controlled House.. If it wasn't they could have easily stopped it.

They didn't stop it because the tax cuts worked to bring us out of the Carter economy. They didn't stop it because the spending was mostly for fighting the Cold War.

This spending by Obama is reckless, and done in such record time, with no real understanding of what the consequences are. Their growth projections were absurd, and obviously inflated. They only did it so people would bow, and say yes master, whatever you wish.

The only "Hope" I have is that in a year and a half from now, he is referred to as a lame duck..

This administration is a sham.