Historical Tax receipts/outlays

H

hornpharmd

5,000+ Posts
Wanted to review how much revenue the US has generated in tax receipts yearly as well as how much the US is spending each year. A few things jump out at me:

1. From 1980 to 1992:
Receipts went from around 500 Billion to 1.1 Trillion
Outlays went from around 600 Billion to 1.4 Trillion
Deficit went from less than 100 Billion to nearly 300 Billion per year

Thus during the Reagan/Bush I administrations we saw huge increases in tax revenue as well as huge increases in spending.

2. From 1992 to 2000:
Receipts went from 1.1 Trillion to about 2 Trillion per year
Outlays went from about 1.4 Trillion to 1.8 Trillion per year
Deficit went from a 290 Billion to a surplus of 236 Billion

There was again a huge increase in tax revenue but there was also a much smaller increase in outlays resulting in a surplus from 1998-2001.

3. From 2000 to 2008:
Receipts went from 2 Trillion to 2.5 Trillion per year
Outlays went from 1.8 Trillion to nearly 3 Trillion per year
Deficit went from a surplus to a deficit of 458 Billion



I wanted to put this out there simply to dispel the myth that the Republican administrations are all about reducing taxes and reducing spending. The last 3 Repulican administrations have all run large federal deficits due to increased federal spending.

With this track record how can the Republican party look voters in the face and talk about spending issues? Looking for open minded non partisan discussion of the pre-2008 economic downturn federal spending policies and the administrations that ran them.

www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
Can you put together a similar chart by Dem/Pub congress rather than by president? This would be much more pertinent since the president may submit a budget but can only sign what is presented to him by congress. Plus when you make the revised chart, please include percentage change. THX
 
Tax revenues are not necessarily indicative of "higher taxation."

I'd also like to see the same evaluation from 2008-Present. Yes, we have been profligate in the recent past under R administrations, but past results are not an indication of future performance. I think you'll find Obama has outspent them all by wide margins. The situation today is not Obama vs. Reagan or Bush, but rather Obama vs. an R House that truly seems to want to rein in spending.
 
No doubt Republicans have failed on reducing spending. It is the main reason for the rise of the tea party as much of their base has felt alienated. I hope they have gotten the message.

Typically the main difference is military spending. Republicans significantly increase it without offsetting with other discretionary spending cuts.
 
True, but.....


defense-entitlement-spending-600.jpg
 
Absolutely true. That was part of my poorly communicated point.

Neither party ever touches entitlements. That has to change.
 
Guys the OP specifically requested a discussion of history and nothing that is happening currently. Y'all enjoy.
 
Sadly I agree with Rex- this time.

Taxation is a very different thing than tax revenues. Tax revenues sky rocket in a booming economy- of course, much of that can be enhanced by cheap credit, like the credit of the early 2000's that prompted the housing collapse, while people took out equity loans to afford flat panel tvs- that did generate mucho tax revenue.

If you turn this into a keynesian debate- it has been disproven many times. Lowering taxes does not generate more tax revenues through a stimulated economy. The proper answer, and the most reasonable one is the conclusion of the bi-partisan commission- you need a modest combination of spending cuts, including defense and entitlements, with a modest tax increase on the upper 1% who relatively- pay less than the rest.
 
I have no problem acknowledging the Dem lite spending of past Republicans, but that does not mean I can't speak up now. The world has changed, priorities change. What mattered to me in the 90's, is different than that matters to me now. The you can't say anything now, because you didn't say anything then line is crock.

Were we talking about trillion dollar deficits in '91?

Now professional politicians is a different story.
 
www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/15/debt.talks.cheat.sheet/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

And Brotha looks like the President's plan involves more spending cuts than the Republican plan right now. So it seems that spending cuts are important to him at this time. And once again we are seeing Republican leaders fall short in this area. No suprise here.

What they need to do after these spending cuts though is increase highest individual tax bracket and decrease corporate tax rate for corporations that have a certain % of their workforce located here in the US and who employ a large enough workforce to qualify. Did I mention get the F out of Afghanistan?
 
I have a simple question.

Do you think the president would be calling for deficit reduction today if the democrats would have won back in Nov.?

If you answer that with a no, then you really cannot be arguing that the president really wants what he says he wants. He is only trying to win re-election by catering to the Tea party/Pubs because they are making it an issue.
 
I did some checking and for the dates used by the OP here is the Senate and House control during those yearsPresidentReagan Senate 1980-1987 Repubs 1987-1988 Dems House 1980-1988 Dems
Bush Senate 1988-1992 Dems House 1988-1992 Dems

Clinton Senate 1992-1995 Dems 1995-2000 Repubs House 1992-1995 Dems 1995-2000 Repubs

GWB Senate 2000-2001 Repubs 2001-2003 Dems 2003-2007 Repubs 2007-2008 Dems House 2000-2007 Repubs 2007-2008 Dems

I personally feel that the Senate and House have most of the power with guidance from the president on big issue items but what isn't really broadcast is the little deals that are made. These deals would be put in with the big ones which would appease the other side so they could say they got something...aka a compromise.

You can take what you want from this but I think to blame presidents and not even consider the congress is wrong. Maybe that is why nothing changes is because the congress remains the same, regardless of who is in control.
 
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

Here is a fact sheet as well. It outlines the amount of deficit reduction and where it will come from. Of course there are some vague areas and the same vagueness that I have seen with every plan such as "the President is calling for individual tax reform that closes loopholes and produces a system which is simpler, fairer and not rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it. "
 
Hornpharm I appreciate your research but your buddy in the white house has given you very little to play with.

His FACT sheet includes things like:
Security reductions - "It sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation"

Social Security - "The President does not believe that Social Security is in crisis nor is a driver of our near-term deficit problems." Does anyone else truly believe this?

For such a lengthy post, this sheet is mostly fluff. In all fairness to the prez though, none of the proposed plans have really tackled the issues. Even Paul Ryan, for as much backlash as he has received, presented a modest at best plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top