tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4303507929825752441.post3108782642418162896..comments2023-10-28T00:31:38.473-07:00Comments on RACE RELATIONS: "Some Budget And Tax Reality" Numbers Don't LieBobby Greerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189102534824566345noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4303507929825752441.post-26768184096731911172012-10-29T10:53:47.626-07:002012-10-29T10:53:47.626-07:00Obama proposes revenue collections from FY2013 to ...Obama proposes revenue collections from FY2013 to FY2017 of . . . 18.8% of GDP. He's banking on more revenue than we're accustomed to collecting already. There is no revenue problem.<br /><br />Meanwhile, federal outlays averaged 19.4% of GDP in the 10 years prior to Obama's arrival. But in the past 4 years of Obama spendholic governance, federal spending has soared to 24.4% of GDP from its long-term average of 19.4%. Obama proposes cutting that to an average of 22.6% over the next 5 years. But that's based upon his phony income-based revenue assumptions of economic growth that won't pan out given the current trajectory. He's forecasting 3.0% real GDP growth this year, 3.2% next year. Neither will be achieved.<br /><br />Federal outlays jumped by 5.8 percentage points of GDP in FY2009 from its prior average . . . and stayed in that range. A 5 percentage point difference equates to an entire "stimulus" plan outlay, each year. In other words, we do an ARRA stimulus plan every fiscal year. But forget about the past. Going forward, we have a spending problem.<br /><br />The truth is, what we really have is an economic growth problem. And that won't be solved by raising federal tax rates. If we had more economic growth, we'd have much more personal and corporate income which would have produced much more income-based federal revenue. But we didn't get that because Obama chose to grow the public sector rather than and at the expense of the private sector. That's our problem.<br /><br />Need more evidence? Look at yesterday's release of real GDP. Sure, Obama administration flacks were overjoyed that the number came in at an annualized rate of 2%, which is less than half of what we have averaged in post-War recoveries. Do they remember when Democrats decried the 4.2% growth rate posted in Q3 1992 when they claimed we were suffering through "the worst economy in 50 years?" Anyway, yesterday's 2% real GDP number was bolstered by a 9.6% growth in federal spending. Remove that boost and economic growth would have come in at an annualized rate of just 1.3%. Deficit spending is providing more than one third of economic growth. How long can this party last?Joseph Toomeyhttp://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed&gid=59754&memberID=51131288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4303507929825752441.post-12373070804109672402012-10-24T12:02:13.102-07:002012-10-24T12:02:13.102-07:00There seems to be no reality involved in what is d...There seems to be no reality involved in what is done in this administration. Sadly, it may be they just don't know they don't know. <br /><br />Most is done to achieve an unworkable agenda and ideology. Liberals seems to be bogged down with causes whereas Conservatives tend to be solution oriented with solving issues that are more important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com