Federal Revenues Are Up 19% Since 2009, Why Do We Need More Taxes?


The conventional political wisdom is that Republicans have lost the argument on taxes. Obama won. Democrats held on in Congress. That means, according to some, that they have a mandate to raise taxes. Because, according to them, a big part of the nation’s deficit problem is lower tax revenues resulting from Bush-era tax cuts.

Unfortunately, this argument doesn’t match up with reality. This chart shows total direct federal revenues, by year, from 1992 through 2012 in nominal dollars:

There is a dip in revenues in 2001 and 2002 corresponding with the post-9/11 recession. Then there is a return to revenue growth even after the implementation of the Bush tax cuts beginning in 2003. That continues until 2008 and 2009 when the collapse of the housing market thrust the nation into a nasty and protracted recession.

But even since then, federal revenues have been growing, increasing roughly 19% over 2009 levels and nearly reaching our 2008 peak.

Yes, tax revenues took a nose dive in the early years of President Obama’s term, but that wasn’t the result of tax cuts. That was the result of the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and the domino effect it had on the economy. And the massive deficits which have accumulated under President Obama are the result of our political leaders refusing to slow spending even as tax revenues dropped. Under Obama, total federal spending has increased 27%:

To be fair, the deficits that accumulated under President Bush (second only to Obama in terms of spending growth) were the same cause. Bush and the Republican Congress he enjoyed for most of his term refused to keep sending in line with revenues. Spending growth outpaced even the rapid growth in total federal revenues we saw after the Bush tax cuts.

The common denominator here, whether we’re talking about Bush-era deficits or Obama-era deficits, is spending.

We don’t have a taxation problem. We have a spending problem.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Mike Quinn

    It is remarkable that after the election a lot of Republicans have come out of the fog and are realizing the plague greed has created. The most decent Republicans are admitting the folly of the Grover Norquist greed pledge. Intelligent Republicans have awoken and realize their unmitigated pursuit of greed will be the demise of the Republican Party. However, there are the insane Tea Party hold outs who think this greed insanity is just fine. You can go to the Huffington Post and watch Joe Scharbourough openly declare that the Republican greed is simply immoral. The election was a clear repudiation of the Republican agenda of greed, what don’t you understand about that?

    • sbark

      show me greed on the list of 10 commandments……..it isnt there is it?
      The covetting of other people property is there ……..and that is what the decades of class envy, the very existence of the Dem’cat Party portrays. Without class envy, covetting other people property……..the Dem’cat party is nonessentilal entity.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, Jesus said very little about helping the poor or the perils of wealth.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I’m no expert, being an atheist and all, but I’m pretty sure Jesus wanted people to choose to help the poor.

          If the Christian god was down with imposing charity by force, he’d do it, being the almighty. Thus, I’m pretty sure the god of Christian teaching believes in individual choice.

          • sbark

            The bible parralles conservatism…………nobody minds helping the truely helpless, is the use of the lazy, fraudulent, shiftless for power that is the problem

            take your picks of what the bible says———

            1)Deuteronomy 15:7-11 “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be

            2)2 Thessalonians 3:6-12

            Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. …

            Dem’cats have used the former to promote class envey and the coveting of others property by a now overwhelming percent of the population that is now, as the latter, are not fully idle and “not paying for bread”….(or even contraception:))………..

            One thing for sure….the bible would not make a case for perpetual “free bread” as does Liberalism. To help a person back on their feet, yet……but never perpetual….that route brings us full circle to covetting other peoples property, back where the discussion began.

        • sbark

          …he said plenty, but it didnt make his top 10 list did it. He forsaw the perils of covetting other peoples property as the much greater overall evil that led to several other of the 10 commandments such as murder etc……
          The irony is the Dem’cat party is based on, and its existence is critical to covetting other peoples property.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonathan-Mollet/528523868 Jonathan Mollet

      If greed means not wanting to steal money from others then I guess you can call me greedy. Good thing we have charitable people like you who want to rob job creators, or society would surely lapse into moral and economic chaos.

    • Thresherman

      Amazing how blind some can be to real greed. We have a Democrat controlled government that spends 130% of its income every year with no intent of reining itself in. That is a level of greed that is unmatched anywhere in the private sector.

    • HG

      I have a question for government, how much is enough?

      Gov’t confiscated 2.5 trillion (2,500,000,000,000.00) dollars from American’s incomes this year. No corporation even comes close to that amount of revenue
      But that’s not greed, is it?

    • Old_Gringo

      You are not only blind, but stupid as well. However, both those attributes are synonymous with you.

  • sbark

    In fact data shows we should be doing the opposite—–the thought of starving the beast thru tax cuts has now proven false—-revenues go up as you show, and govt spending just follows it up exponentially. Its much like giving a adolescant an ulimited credit care.
    Might as well raise the taxes to pre JFK levels which will reduce Fed revenues…….
    The real solution is a flat tax, where everyone has skin in the game, the Free stuff bunch then can see a cost for what they sell their votes for………once they see a higher and higher cost…….then of course “consumption” of free stuff will be reduced……..
    at present the free stuff has zero cost to the bulk of demcat voters——-and thus consumption goes up exponentially…………its basic economics 101

  • HG

    These increases occurred by keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, including those for the wealthy.

    • Guest

      These increases occurred despite keeping Bush tax cuts in place, including those for the wealth.

      • HG

        How so? How do the revenues increase with the tax cuts in place? According to you libs, tax cuts have to be paid for.

        • Guest

          Revenues increased despite the tax cuts, HorribleGas; they’d be even higher had the tax cuts not been in place, over a trillion dollars to be exact. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Don’t confuse their precious little heads with facts. It’s too much for them to comprehend.

          • HG

            That predictions assumes that less money in the market would have not hindered economic growth. That is the exact opposite of what Obama’s stimulus intended to do.

          • Guest

            Nice try HorribleGas, taxed money doesn’t simply evaporate. Fact is, even if some of the tax cuts paid for themselves with a slightly better economy (which is silly, considering the terrible situation we were in through the last years of the Bush administration), it still cost over a trillion dollars. http://taxfoundation.org/article/how-much-did-bush-tax-cuts-cost-forgone-revenue

          • HG

            So you disagree with the President’s stimulus spending?

          • Guest

            I disagree that stimulus in 2009 has any relevance to the cost of Bush tax cuts passed in 2001.

  • Dakotacyr

    Revisionist history in plain view today. Did you forget to mention the Huge spending during the Bush administration and the run up of huge deficits by the Republicans?

    I think you did.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      You must have forgotten to read this paragraph:

      To be fair, the deficits that accumulated under President Bush (second only to Obama in terms of spending growth) were the same cause. Bush and the Republican Congress he enjoyed for most of his term refused to keep sending in line with revenues. Spending growth outpaced even the rapid growth in total federal revenues we saw after the Bush tax cuts.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Nor does Bush-era spending, which I’m the first to admit was awful, change the fact that our present problem has nothing to do with revenues and everything to do with spending that has accelerated since Bush left office.

  • WOOF

    Somethings happening here.
    As of November 1, 2012 the United States had a total
    resident population of 314,832,000
    2007 –(301.3 million)

    • HG

      And yet fewer of them are working. That means revenues are up with fewer employed and the Bush tax cuts still in place.

      • WOOF

        The argument Rob has posted on a complex matter, can’t be reduced to a couple of numbers.
        The Bush tax cuts will remain in place(except for 250K +++). and the R’s will backtrack, as they did previously, from the fiscal cliff.
        As to who is working :
        “The civilian labor force rose by 578,000 to 155.6 million in October, and the labor
        force participation rate edged up to 63.8 percent. Total employment rose by 410,000
        over the month. The employment-population ratio was essentially unchanged at 58.8
        percent, following an increase of 0.4 percentage point in September. (See table A-1.)

        The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
        as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 269,000 to 8.3 million in October, partially
        offsetting an increase of 582,000 in September”http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htmThe Bush tax cuts will remain in place and the R’s will backtrack, as they did before, from the fiscal cliff.

        • HG

          Regardless, of the October numbers, fewer people were employed throughout the time revenues increased and ALL Bush tax cuts remained in effect.
          The population growth hasn’t contributed to increased revenues.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I wouldn’t say population growth hasn’t contributed at all, but it’s not the driving factor.

            We are seeing a degree of recovery.

            The point of the argument is that taxes aren’t our problem. Revenues didn’t plummet in 2001 and, even worse, 2008/2009 because of tax cuts. They plunged because of the economy. Thus, the fix is to a) grow the economy again and b) lower spending.

          • HG

            True. Should have said population growth did not necessarily contribute since more people were employed when the population was 302 mil. than at 315.
            And you’re point is dead on.

          • WOOF

            No, more people are working now. You want a simple answer to a complex situation. http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm

          • HG

            Woof, the number of employed was 140 mil in 09 and 140 mil. in Jan 2012. During that same time federal revenues increased. During that same period the Bush tax cuts remained. That’s a fact your chart only reinforces.

        • Old_Gringo

          “The civilian labor force rose by 578,000 to 155.6 million in October, and the labor force participation rate edged up to 63.8 percent. Total employment rose by 410,000 over the month…”. How many of those jobs were in the Government sector and how many in the private sector?

          • guest

            And in the real world, in the last two weeks reported, 839,000 people lost their jobs. Any guess how many jobs lost will be reported this Thursday?

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        Exactly right. We’re still not back to 2008 levels in terms of job numbers.

        • HG

          And… Obama “invested” deficit dollars in the economy.
          So what we have here is an admission of the Obama administration that more money in the hands of individuals results in increased federal revenues and the evidence to back it up.

  • mikemc1970

    This isn’t about raising tax revenues and it never was. It is about waging warfare against different segments of our society. They are doing the same thing to whites and Christians. United we stand, divided we’re Democrats.

    • Guest

      I don’t know if it’s sadder that you think there’s a war against whites or that you’re actually getting upvoted for expressing such a delusion

  • Mike Quinn

    All they lying, distortion, and bull shit on this blog proved fruitless. Obama won, Heidi won. Did it occur to anyone helping perpetrate the Republican fantasy, that you are just deluding each other? The real people cable of thinking and voting have abandoned the nonsense here. You are just telling the people in your tribe the same old stories that you like to hear. The problem is reality has proven the stories are all false. Today if you pried yourself out of this delusional world you could read what Warren Buffet says about taxes. What would he know? You could even read what a lot of intelligent Republicans say about taxes. But, that is not the case, you like the old stories you tell each other and somehow it brings you comfort and joy knowing that there are a lot of idiots like yourselves that just don’t ever want to think differently or in any new fashion. The world has changed, you are being left behind. The old rich white guys at the country club just got voted out. Their boat is sinking. If you want to stay on it and listen to the band, enjoy, enjoy.

    • djpala

      You can’t even spell moron, just like teleprompter man !!!

    • Old_Gringo

      Just what in ‘ell are you endeavoring to impart to us poor delusional Conservatives? I don’t “get” whatever it is you are trying to say. I suppose I am one of your “idiots”, far behind your level of comprehension. Oh woe is me.

  • chris

    Remember, the increased federal spending during the last four years was mostly in reaction to the recession and therefore the low tax receipts (bailouts, increased unemployment insurance, “cash for clunkers”, etc.), not the other way around. Now that the economy is improving, we should see “recession spending” go down drastically and tax receipts go up.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I think that’s true, though revenues aren’t going to go up enough to offset our $1 trillion deficit any time soon, let alone to start going backwards on debt growth.

      Which is why we need to leave taxes alone and cut spending.

      • chris
        • HG

          It may have to do with the fact that there isn’t a finely tuned formula for calculating the increased revenues resulting from tax cuts, but history shows it works. It really isn’t the mystery you liberals want to pretend. Obama knows it works that is why he gave so much stimulus money to businesses and corporations. In effect, the recipients got a massive tax cut, maybe even a tax holiday. Everyone with a brain knows more money in the pockets of producers means more production.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            HG, all of those wealthy CEO’s who were fired and then started a career in politics spent hundreds of millions of dollars…..and lost. What did they “produce” for all of those millions that they were paid to leave before they did any more damage?

          • HG

            49% of the vote for starters. But your question is so irrelevant I hesitate to even correct it. A political campaign is nothing to compare to the production accomplished in the free market. The two are so incomparable that your comment appears ignorant.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, my comment highlights a reality that you choose to ignore, like so many other real facts I present to you, that you ignore.

            America allows ridiculous amounts of wealth to accumulate to only a very few, including those who have least deserved or earned it.

            When a failed CEO can run for office by funding their own campaign to the tune of hundreds of millions…….and still lose……..something is wrong.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “America allows ridiculous amounts of wealth to accumulate to only a very few, including those who have least deserved or earned it.”

            That may be the most telling statement you’ve ever made here, Tiny Poputchik. Now tell us again how much of a ‘free market guy’ you are, Tiny Socialist! What a poseur!

            America allows??? Does America ‘allow’ you to have a ridiculous amount of surfboards, Tiny Cretin? Or a new Big Wheel? Or a new bridge to live under? Or are you a free citizen, free to accumulate whatever you lawfully can? Who are you, Tiny Hypocrite, to determine who “deserves” the wealth they’ve accumulated? Does that include John Kerry? Teddy Kennedy?? Al Gore??? Or are liberal gigolos and those born with silver spoons in their mouths exempt from your feeble minded, socialist notions?

            The socialist’s desire to control everything, including the amount of wealth one is allowed to accumulate, also seeks to control how much freedom one has.

            How much freedom should America ‘allow’ its citizens, Tiny Socialist?

            CEO’s are accountable to their shareholders. They are worth whatever salary and benefits they can negotiate. Want a higher salary? Practice saying, “Do you want fries with that?” Want some skin in the game? Buy stocks. Your petty jealousy because you don’t earn as much as a CEO is directly proportional to the incompetence that keeps you from becoming one. Or did “America” simply not “allow” you to succeed? /sarc

          • HG

            Look at the wealth politicians accumulate while in office. If ever there was legitimate frustration over the accumulation of wealth, it would have to be directed at politicians, not at free market participants.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Harry Reid, the Dimbulb from Searchlight has amassed a pretty goodly sum on just a “public servant’s” salary, hasn’t he?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            PROOFoundly_stupid, what do you think lying about people does for you, except reveal your insecurities, stupidity, hatred and childishness?

            “CEO’s are accountable to their shareholders. They are worth whatever salary and benefits they can negotiate.. – Proofoundly_stupid

            Brahahaha! That statement goes to show that you have absolutely no idea how successful businesses are run, or what’s happening in the real world of business.

            And there is a stark difference between paying your valued employees, who do the true work of business, proper wages and the CEO robbing companies blind, while driving them into the ground, compared to socialism. That’s not socialism to demand a better business model, it’s capitalism at it’s finest. Not that I or anyone took your lame-brained argument seriously.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your anti-free market rant and rampant projection, are both duly noted.

            Don’t be jealous just because all you can negotiate is a paper hat to go with your minimum wage job as fry cook.

            Tell us again how “America allows ridiculous amounts of wealth to accumulate to only a
            very few, including those who have least deserved or earned it.” How then should “America” not allow it, Mr. “I’m a Free Marget Guy” Poseur?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s pro free market to ensure that the free market is sustained. Your argument that CEO salary increase is deserved because they negotiated is ignorant and flawed. CEOs salaries are going up while share holder value is going down. But you don’t care about that, you just care about making a point for your team; Team Asshole, who can’t make a logical argument (heh):

            The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between CEOs of the S&P 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010.[2] Back in 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average worker’s pay.[3]

            CEOs supposedly deserve all this money for increasing shareholder value. However, while the average CEO pay increased 13.9 percent at S&P 500 Index companies in 2011, the S&P 500 Index ended the year at the same level as it started.

            This double-digit increase in average CEO pay for the second consecutive year shows just how disconnected the top 1 percent is from the 99 percent. In 2011, average wages increased just 2.8 percent and average worker pay totaled $34,053.[4]

            Both workers and shareholders have suffered over the previous decade. On Dec. 31, 2010, the S&P 500 Index closed 19 percent below its high on March 24, 2000. U.S. median household income fell $3,719 between 2000 and 2010.[5]

            Runaway CEO pay is one reason why income inequality is growing in the United States. A Congressional Budget Office report found that inequality has risen dramatically, with the top 1 percentreceiving most of the income growth between 1979 and 2007.[6]

            What’s more, a new study by economist Emmanuel Saez at the University of California shows that in 2010—the first year of the economy’s recovery from the Great Recession—the top 1 percent captured 93 percent of the growth in income.[7]

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your meaningless blather assumes that all CEOs are the same and somehow interchangeable. The ratio of CEO to worker pay is meaningless. Might as well ask what is the pay ratio between an NFL quarterback or coach and the ticket takers and beer venders?

            “It’s pro free market to ensure that the free market is sustained”

            By imposing all sorts of regulations on it? I hate to break it to you, but that’s the opposite of a free market, Tiny Socialist. But, thanks for the view from your colon.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Well, it’s good to see that I have you backtracking on your previous stupid statement, PROOFoundly_stupid. You said CEO’s are worth what they negotiated in pay, now you are backpedaling. Too funny!

            Please don’t think that I didn’t see you hide from the fact that shareholder value has gone down while CEO pay has gone up, which refutes your earlier comment, and all you can do is lie about your opponent, by pretending they work at a fast food chain in order to lift your miserable self up, and insulting millions of Americans who work at fast food chains. But that’s you, asshole all over.

            And, no, I did not assume that they are all the same, the information provided to you is what smart people refer to as an average, specifically of a certain type of CEO which was the topic of my discussion.

            But since you are incapable of intelligent argument and can only debate lies and fantasies you have created in order to insult people, it’s not like I expected you to confront reality, you are an SAB blog poodle after all.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You are such an ignorant child, Hanni Boo Bo. I am not backtracking at all! The CEO is worth (present tense) what he or she negotiates. Some things, however, as you will learn as you get older, change…like buying a car, changes in value when you drive it off the lot. To say that things change in value, go up or down, is axiomatic, not “backtracking”.

            And thank you, once again, for the view from your colon.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            LOL. Here’s a news flash for you, rookie. CEO’s negotiate their worth and compensation at the beginning, not the end of their contract or as they are being shown the door. So if a CEO is paid millions to leave, after he has driven the company into the ground and/or lost share holder value, he is NOT worth what he negotiated when he entered. Yet CEOs are being paid more at the end of their contract, or career, even if they ran the company into the ground.

            This is exactly why morons like you delude others into believing they know what they are talking about. LOL.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Ah, Tiny Hanni Boo Boo! Every time I think you have made the lamest, or stupidest or most irrelevant argument you can make, you surprise me and outdo yourself!

            ” CEO’s negotiate their worth and compensation at the beginning… of their contract” Well, duh! Do you know any sane person who signs a contract to work for anyone else, with the compensation to be determined later? Is that what they did to you at the Burger Barn, Hanni? Bless your heart! A better question might be, do you know any sane people at all?

            CEOs and movie stars and professional athletes (and a multitude of professions) sign contracts based on what the two parties mutually agree is their worth. In the sixties, that meant that Johnny Unitas played for the Colts for a couple of hundred bucks. Today, a player of that caliber signs in the millions.

            And because CEOs, movie stars and professional athletes are often expected to be worth way more than their salaries, they are given incentives in the form of bonuses, or a percentage of profits, if they meet certain goals.

            Any sane person could point out actors who were hired based on their past performance, who did not deliver the box office their producers expected. Ishtar, Heaven’s Gate, & Waterworld come to mind. But, they came to an agreement up front what they were worth, and because of under performance, received little or nothing on the “back end”. CEO’s who under perform don’t, or shouldn’t, get bonuses as if they did. That’s what Boards of Directors are for, to maximize profits for the shareholders.

            Many a sport’s star negotiates a large contract, as you have so brilliantly pointed out ( /sarc), in the beginning, who because of injuries or other reasons, does not perform to expectation, and is either traded or has his contract renegotiated downward at its renewal. Things change, Skippy. Like the oil in the fry machine.

            I never said that a CEO who drives his company into the ground is worth the same at the end of his contract as when he negotiates it. What kind of witless child are you to assume that? What part of “changes in value” was so complicated that it escaped the gerbils turning the wheel inside your head?

            The CEO is “worth” what he negotiates for at the time of the negotiation. Good CEOs get bonuses, bad CEOs get booted. Which part of that don’t you understand?

            If you ever get a job outside the Burger Barn, maybe some of this might become clearer to you? (But, I doubt it.) Mahalo, for the view from your colon.

          • HG

            What the hell does that have to do with my response to Chris that you responded to?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            HG, You notice anything that looked like a scalded dog running away from this thread? Poor Hanni Boo Boo is back on another thread, but can’t seem to find his way back here to answer either of us!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Are you still seeking attention from me, hater?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Hardly. Just pointing out, that once again, when you have your arse handed to you, you run away like a scalded dog. It’s so commonplace now, it’s hardly worth mentioning.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            LOL. Some of us happen to have real jobs, Blog Poodle. Not that you would know about that, you’re just a low-level admin.

            I don’t have all day to waste my employers money, as you do.

          • HG

            How much of your day do you have to waste your employers money?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Low level? Just because you can walk under a closed door without ducking your head, doesn’t mean everyone sees the world from your perspective, Tiny Sociopath. The rest of your meaningless blather is duly noted.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You said more money in the hands of the producers means more production. Depending upon who you meant, that’s a false statement. As many corporations today give most of the money to the ultra wealthy CEO’s that you Tea Party cranks refer to as the producers (ie; Romney) but that money doesn’t make it’s way back down……they sit on their hundreds of millions and spend it frivolously to feed their ego’s by running for public office that they aren’t qualified to hold.

          • HG

            Then why the hell did Obama give so much stimulus money to business, corporations, banks, etc if the money in the hands of producers doesn’t stimulate production or make its way back down?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Welcome to 2012, GH. Where have you been? Why don’t you try going back to 2008 and shed your blinders and lose the denial you have clung to over the last four years. There is a thing called the “internets” that can explain to you the purpose of the stimulus.

            Hint: it had nothing to do with taxes, as you foolishly claimed.

            Why the Economic Stimulus Package Was Created

            The main purpose of the economic stimulus package was to instill the confidence needed to restore economy growth. Monetary policy had done all it could, and it was clear fiscal policy was needed. The stimulus plan also aimed to restore trust in the finance industry by further limiting bonuses for senior executives for companies that received TARP funds.(Sources: CBO, Letter to Senator Grassley, March 2, 2009; Economic Projections; Recovery.gov))

  • DWHoover

    You are completely leaving out the answer to the question, which is also the liberal mantra – “fair share”.

  • Harold

    Federal revenues are up 19% so why do we need more tax’s? Simple answer to that question so politicians can buy more votes in the next election.

  • borborygmi

    Why do we need to raise taxes, because we like to be the world policemen, because we need to take out some terrorists, because we have a penchant to nation build, because older people should be treated with some dignity and we take care of them through subsidies and paying them back for what they bought into, because relatively speaking the we have adequate or surplus food supply at a cheap price because it is subsidized, because health care is important especially for children, because we need something to bitch about so we subsidize tobacco so we can spend lots of money saying you shouldn’t, because we like our transportation, we like clean water and clean air. We like our parks and we like for the Federal Gov’t to help in a natural disaster. We like the Gov’t Air Bases, Naval Bases, Marine and Army Facilities even if antiquated or redundant. We like the plants the supply the Arms and Weaponry and logistical support for out armed services especially when they are in our state/city… We should treat out servicemen and women with dignity when they come back shot all to hell either to bury them or to heal them. We need taxes because education is of importance to the general populace. The Founders felt we should supply a basice education for 1st through 8th grade. The higher levels should be private. This may have worked in the agrarian age but is hardly a template for the age of information and technology. We need taxes because of research and development, technology, medicine and health, agriculture, building materials, warfare materials, science, aeronautics etc. are important to us. Business like to partner with Gov through grants and research,. Tax money. We like our National Parks. The businesses around them like our National Parks. Children shouldn’t go hungry and the elderly shouldn’t have to beg. Services or in the parlance of Conservatives ,”Gifts” , We like them. The poor, the rich, the middle class, the banker, the business owner, the educator, and on and on and on. We like our services, we need our services. We can be free but few are independant, we are interdependant. Thats why we need taxes. If it wasn’t Federal Funds funding enmass it will be state and local funds. You will trade the buearacracy of the Feds with the Buearacracy of the state or local. The Fed regulations will be traded for state and local regulations. There will be have and have not states and have and have not cities. The haves will be better off then the have nots. The have nots will resent the haves. So it has been and so it will ever be.

  • Don Quixote

    Really??? You compare two graphs that don’t cover the same time period to prove your point. The spending graph seems to mainly cover the peiod from the beginning from the recession to now. Surprise, spending goes up rapidly. Hmmm. Could it be because of the bailout of the financial market, the rising cost of covering people on unemployment, etc.? If you want to prove your point, show me two graphs covering the same time period. Oh…you might not want to do that. After all, we were fighting two wars and funding them through borrowing.
    The idea that you reduce spending in a recession is just what Greece is doing now. How is that working? 25% unemployment and a collapsing economy. Every turn of the fiscal conservative screws brings more unemployment and a further reduction in the economy. That is idiotic.
    I would note that an improving economy with more people working would result in more revenue and possibly a reduced rate of increase in spending. That could result in a surplus in the budget, friends, which, if it should occur, should be used to reduce debt.
    We have had 30 years plus of VooDoo economics. It hasn’t worked yet and I doubt that it ever will. Thank goodness Obama won.

    • 1Hoss

      Hey genius, your boy Obama spent a TRILLION bucks, and we got zip out of it. Hardly voodoo economics. Bush was Keynesian, but obviously not nearly the ideological purist Obama is in pursuing those historically tried and failed Keynesian policies. Once again, you lefties can’t see the forest through the trees; you have to be a democrat to believe that you can have a 76% increase in spending in conjunction with a 39% increase in revenue, and think it’s sustainable. It’s spending, not taxing.

  • 1Hoss

    Obama’s OMB cites a 39% increase in federal revenue since the Bush tax cuts, but a roughly 76% increase in federal spending. And the leftards still don’t think we have a spending problem. Enjoy the decline. Buy more ammo.

    I almost want to give the democrats their much-needed tax increase on the productive just so we can see how fast after that that they’re complaining that the rich still aren’t paying their “fair share.” I’ll bet it wouldn’t be two months before they left started whining again…

  • $8194357

    What does Pravda know American MSM doesn’t?


    Nov 26, 2012 07:31 AM EST

    Russian newspaper Pravda is blaming President Obama’s re-election on an “illiterate society” who voted for him.

    (Wasn’t the Alinsky left saying conservitives were the benifierary of the “uniformed/ignorant voters”? 7.62)

    Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.

    After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

    Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

    The editorial even mention’s President Obama’s Fast and Furious scandal.

    Any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O’bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like “fast and furious” and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.
    Remember, this op-ed was written by someone who knows communism first hand. While I don’t agree Putin is an example of pure freedom, I can’t say I disagree with the editorial’s main points about giving into Obama’s cult of personality while ignoring his long list of failures and his collectivist, central control, big government political philosophy.

    Not like some of us haven’t been telling you folks all about this for awhile, huh…
    Maybe you would belive it if Puten tells ya the same thing?
    Maybe from the White House next time?

  • Lynn Bergman

    A slight majority of American voters believe we have a problem taxing the “rich” enough. As long as public schools’ flatlined outcomes produce the current level of intelligence in new voters, free markets have no hope.
    Reform and removal of the feds from public education is the first step toward returning free market thinking to our populace.

  • ‘Tom Crawford

    Do you REALLY believe that if they (the government) get more “revenue” in (taxes), that they will use it wisely?

    Do you REALLY think so?

    I don’t. I think they will say, look we have all this “extra” money lets spend it on our pet projects and they will spend it like drunken sailors….then say we need MORE.

  • LastBestHope

    The numbers work like this: “The president’s plan to increase taxes on the upper 2 percent (of American earners) covers the spending by this federal government not for eight years, not for eight months, not for eight weeks but for eight days”

    And yet taxing those who make over $250k a year (MILLIONAIRES & BILLIONAIRES goes the chant) is political gold for the democrats and an anchor around republican necks.

    Time to just say yes to these tax hikes. They change nothing in reality, but will shut down the democrats endless talking point about “fairness.” Let the Hollywood limousine liberals cough up the money. It’ll at least leave them with less to shower on democrats in 2014.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/27/republicans-say-limiting-tax-cuts-alone-will-hardly-put-dent-in-budget-deficit/#ixzz2DTWx5iVa

  • banjo kid

    It makes no difference where the tax rates are at , they will spend it, no matter if the tax was at 100% of income they would find a way to spend it plus some more . If you as an individual had unlimited access to every ones money would you not spend it and tend to over spend . We need a total replacement of our elected officials if nothing else to show them they can be replaced. Republican , democrat they are beginning to look alike . I also believe the 174 grand they make is over paid, but the lobbying has benefits no one sees such as pay backs for this or that and insider trading which still has not been addressed . The congress and the senate work hard at one item and that is keeping the money flowing to them . All the while Valerie Jarrett runs our country into the ditch foreign wise and domestic wise.

  • pierro

    Valid points you are sharing here. A blog is a very powerful platform you can use to build long-lasting relationships with your readers and keep them coming back for more.