Posted on 07/08/2006 10:20:32 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
This is an excerpt. Check out the On-Budget vs Off-Budget for 2002-2005. You're right. It is interesting. (and I REALLY hope that this formatting takes).
\
Table 1.1ÃÂÃÂSUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789ÃÂÃÂ2011 |
|||||||||
(in millions of dollars) |
|||||||||
Year |
Total |
On-Budget |
Off-Budget |
||||||
Receipts |
Outlays |
Surplus or Deficit(−) |
Receipts |
Outlays |
Surplus or Deficit(−) |
Receipts |
Outlays |
Surplus or Deficit(−) |
|
2000 |
2,025,457 |
1,789,216 |
236,241 |
1,544,873 |
1,458,451 |
86,422 |
480,584 |
330,765 |
149,819 |
2001 |
1,991,426 |
1,863,190 |
128,236 |
1,483,907 |
1,516,352 |
-32,445 |
507,519 |
346,838 |
160,681 |
2002 |
1,853,395 |
2,011,153 |
-157,758 |
1,338,074 |
1,655,491 |
-317,417 |
515,321 |
355,662 |
159,659 |
2003 |
1,782,532 |
2,160,117 |
-377,585 |
1,258,690 |
1,797,108 |
-538,418 |
523,842 |
363,009 |
160,833 |
2004 |
1,880,279 |
2,293,006 |
-412,727 |
1,345,534 |
1,913,495 |
-567,961 |
534,745 |
379,511 |
155,234 |
2005 |
2,153,859 |
2,472,205 |
-318,346 |
1,576,383 |
2,069,994 |
-493,611 |
577,476 |
402,211 |
175,265 |
2006 estimate |
2,285,491 |
2,708,677 |
-423,186 |
1,675,526 |
2,277,667 |
-602,141 |
609,965 |
431,010 |
178,955 |
2007 estimate |
2,415,852 |
2,770,097 |
-354,245 |
1,773,533 |
2,316,952 |
-543,419 |
642,319 |
453,145 |
189,174 |
2008 estimate |
2,590,258 |
2,813,592 |
-223,334 |
1,911,129 |
2,347,125 |
-435,996 |
679,129 |
466,467 |
212,662 |
2009 estimate |
2,714,207 |
2,921,760 |
-207,553 |
1,997,985 |
2,435,200 |
-437,215 |
716,222 |
486,560 |
229,662 |
2010 estimate |
2,878,167 |
3,060,875 |
-182,708 |
2,119,705 |
2,527,217 |
-407,512 |
758,462 |
533,658 |
224,804 |
2011 estimate |
3,034,861 |
3,239,769 |
-204,908 |
2,233,286 |
2,648,669 |
-415,383 |
801,575 |
591,100 |
210,475 |
Oh good. I was trying to figure out where you could have misconstrued what I was saying... ;-)
I am pleasantly surprised that the NYT printed this information prominently at their website.
Yesterday I was listening to Rush, then ABC News broke in. Bad News: job growth less than expected. Only 120,000 new jobs added last month - less than the 160,000 estimated by some. They can spin anything.
My state also. They have spent it all and are still in a budget crisis.
"Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium."
Amazing.
Expect more spending increses.
Technically, what TeMarius3188 said was true, but it's misleading.
The point is that Clinton's budgets slashed defense spending in favor of domestic programs, and GW Bush's priorities were to restore defense spending.
Agreed. I have heard normally sane people argue that they would rather not get raises, because then they'd have to pay more taxes. Nobody likes to pay more taxes, but if your total net income is higher even with increased taxes, then it's quite stupid to not want a pay raise. I suspect that most of the anti-raise people were joking or not thinking coherently at the time. I also suspect that they would actually jump for joy at a pay raise.
Quite right. Everybody is quick to calculate the costs of doing something, but it is a lot harder to tote up the costs of not doing the right thing. Pay me now, or pay me a lot more later. Clinton preferred that the dirty work of guaranteeing the country's safety be done after he left office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.