Revenues, in constant dollars, in trillions:
1998: 2.04
1999: 2.14
2000: 2.31
2001: 2.21
2002: 2.03
2003: 1.90
2004: 1.95
2005: 2.15
2006: 2.32
2007: 2.41
2008: 2.29
2009: 1.90
2010: 1.93
2011: 2.00
2012: 2.09 (est)
2000 was a surplus year. Revenues of $2.31 trillion, and outlays of $2.04 trillion.
The average post-recession revenues (2009 through 2012) are about $1.98 trillion. A "dramatic" $179 billion reduction over the average of the previous eleven years.
Average annual outlays over those four post-recession years?
$3.15 trillion.
If we still were bringing in the 2000 revenues of $2.31 trillion, the deficit would now be averaging $840 billion a year, twice Bush's largest deficits.
(All constant 2005 dollars from the Obama budget tables)
At this point a third grader would see what the real problem was.
(I welcome math checks)
Current Events » in reply to So not a word about dramatically reduced revenues. Disappointing.
Okay, let's talk revenues
The whole thread (25 posts)
- Ready for Taxmageddon?
- The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
- Pretending again?
- Re: Pretending again?
- That will depend on what and grand bargain or tax reform looks like, now won't it?
- Let's give some of those things a try.
- Let's wrap this up
- You're not paying attention to the details of the tax hike.
- I'm fully aware of the middle class proporation
- Can we try to remember that deficits actually were at Bush-era levels during the Bush era?
- I'm fully aware of the middle class proporation
- You're not paying attention to the details of the tax hike.
- Let's wrap this up
- We should call their bluff.
- Let's give some of those things a try.
- That will depend on what and grand bargain or tax reform looks like, now won't it?
- Re: Pretending again?