IMO fed revenues are down because of 7 million jobs lost….the DEBT is UP because of OVERSPENDING….Bush oversaw (did not VETO) 8 years of adding $4.9 Trillion and left Jan.2009 debt of total $10.6 Trillion..in 2,648 days!-Obama in 945 days has overseen and promoted overspending that raised the DEBT $4.2 Trillion in only 35% of Time! Obama will exceed Bush’s 8 year deficit total in 4 years!
Obama’s policies are preventing business growth and new jobs……maybe presidential policies are the “ladder”?
what a great theory. revenues are down because jobs are gone – that’s true fact. the debt is up because of overspending, that’s opinion and conclusion.
wouldn’t it be nice if one could connect revenues with debt? but of course that is beyond the ability of some.
Looking at your link, I clicked on “Financial Statements”, where on page 8 it shows that the “Consolidated revenue” in billions of dollars was 2,661 in 2008 and 2,198 in 2009.As I’ve often said, economics is not my strong point, but that looks like a 17% drop, rather than a 10% gain.Do I have it wrong?
Ah, when you said, “while yearly revenue is 10% or more higher each and every year”, I mistakenly thought you meant “while yearly revenue is 10% or more higher each and every year”.But with your further explanation, it makes more sense that the revenue increased by 10%, since the population increased by 10% during the same period…meaning the per capita rate stayed about the same.
I just compared one decade to the next, and used your 10% figure (once you explained that “each and every year” didn’t mean consecutive years.So in the 5 years from 2000 to 2004, population may have increased 5%, but Revenue fell 6%. (Fun with statistics. And I know that 2000 to 2004 is only 4 years, but so is 2001 to 2005).
So if revenue isn’t based on population, then why do the Republicans keep whining that over half the population doesn’t pay federal income tax? Shouldn’t matter…
I know what the initials stand for, and from the words can guess what they mean, but I’d start to sweat and squirm if pushed for the significance of it.And I definitely couldn’t tell you why the federal government’s income is based on that, and not on income taxes, which is what you seem to be saying.
SHAKENDOWN over 12 years ago
MIssed by countless hairs breadths.
Odon Premium Member over 12 years ago
Don’t worry about jobs the Speaker is focused like a laser on them!
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
^You mean as in “zapping jobs with his budget-cutting laser?”
disgustedtaxpayer over 12 years ago
IMO fed revenues are down because of 7 million jobs lost….the DEBT is UP because of OVERSPENDING….Bush oversaw (did not VETO) 8 years of adding $4.9 Trillion and left Jan.2009 debt of total $10.6 Trillion..in 2,648 days!-Obama in 945 days has overseen and promoted overspending that raised the DEBT $4.2 Trillion in only 35% of Time! Obama will exceed Bush’s 8 year deficit total in 4 years!
Obama’s policies are preventing business growth and new jobs……maybe presidential policies are the “ladder”?
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
The revenue “stream” has been dammed and polluted for a long time, folks.
dannysixpack over 12 years ago
what a great theory. revenues are down because jobs are gone – that’s true fact. the debt is up because of overspending, that’s opinion and conclusion.
wouldn’t it be nice if one could connect revenues with debt? but of course that is beyond the ability of some.
riley05 over 12 years ago
Looking at your link, I clicked on “Financial Statements”, where on page 8 it shows that the “Consolidated revenue” in billions of dollars was 2,661 in 2008 and 2,198 in 2009.As I’ve often said, economics is not my strong point, but that looks like a 17% drop, rather than a 10% gain.Do I have it wrong?
tcity over 12 years ago
(snicker)
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
Anthony- conservative “economics” and “statistics” totally depend on “mystery math”, but you already knew that.
riley05 over 12 years ago
Ah, when you said, “while yearly revenue is 10% or more higher each and every year”, I mistakenly thought you meant “while yearly revenue is 10% or more higher each and every year”.But with your further explanation, it makes more sense that the revenue increased by 10%, since the population increased by 10% during the same period…meaning the per capita rate stayed about the same.
riley05 over 12 years ago
I just compared one decade to the next, and used your 10% figure (once you explained that “each and every year” didn’t mean consecutive years.So in the 5 years from 2000 to 2004, population may have increased 5%, but Revenue fell 6%. (Fun with statistics. And I know that 2000 to 2004 is only 4 years, but so is 2001 to 2005).
riley05 over 12 years ago
So if revenue isn’t based on population, then why do the Republicans keep whining that over half the population doesn’t pay federal income tax? Shouldn’t matter…
riley05 over 12 years ago
I know what the initials stand for, and from the words can guess what they mean, but I’d start to sweat and squirm if pushed for the significance of it.And I definitely couldn’t tell you why the federal government’s income is based on that, and not on income taxes, which is what you seem to be saying.