Jim DeMint says federal government has more revenue coming in "than we ever have"

BlackWolf

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
On the June 26, 2011, edition of CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., supported the decision by Republican budget negotiators to keep tax increases off the table.

Two leading congressional Republicans -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. -- pulled out of bipartisan talks on how to avoid federal debt exceeding a congressionally approved limit. If no action is taken and the debt limit is exceeded in August, the U.S. could be viewed as defaulting on its obligations, which could in turn trigger wider economic difficulties.

CNN host Candy Crowley asked DeMint -- a leader of fiscal conservatives in the Senate -- "Why shouldn't we just look at this and say it is another giant game of ‘chicken’ by our legislators?"

DeMint responded, "Well, we've got more revenue than we ever have. We're spending more than we ever have. We don't -- we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. The government is doing things that we can't do well. We're wasting billions of dollars. And we're not going to address that waste and fraud until we have to."

A reader asked us whether the federal government currently has "more revenue than we ever have." So we decided to take a look.

We turned to historical data tables from the Office of Management and Budget. First, we looked at raw dollars for federal receipts for fiscal years going back to 1901. These numbers primarily include revenue from federal taxes, though a small portion includes money from tariffs and other sources.

For fiscal year 2010 -- the last year for which final numbers are available -- federal revenue totaled $2.16 trillion. The figure for fiscal year 2011, which is a projection, is $2.17 trillion.

But neither is the highest in U.S. history. Three other years exceeded both years’ figures -- 2006 (with $2.41 trillion in receipts), 2007 (with $2.57 trillion) and 2008 (with $2.52 trillion).

But raw figures aren’t even the best measurement, since they take no account of the size of the economy as a whole. As the nation’s economy grows over the long term, receipts tend to go up -- and over the long term, the economy, as measured by gross domestic product, has grown dramatically, making raw-number comparisons over time problematic.

OMB also offers a historical table for receipts as a share of GDP. And this yardstick makes the inaccuracy of DeMint’s statement even clearer.

In fiscal year 2010, federal receipts accounted for 14.9 percent of GDP, a number that’s projected to fall to 14.4 percent of GDP by fiscal year 2011.

To find a level lower than that, you have to go back to the days of the Korean War, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the gray flannel suit. In 1950, federal receipts as a percentage of GDP amounted to 14.4 percent. During the subsequent six decades, the share typically hovered between 16 percent and 20 percent.

When we contacted DeMint’s office, spokesman Wesley Denton said the absolute levels of federal tax revenues collected in many of the most recent years have been at or near record levels, even if it wasn’t the case for 2010.

"It is absolutely clear that recent years have seen the highest tax revenues on record, but our spending has skyrocketed even more," Denton said. "If spending were today at 2003 spending levels, hardly a time of miserly spending, we'd be running a surplus instead of a deficit." (We checked Denton’s 2003 comparison, and he’s correct.)

Still, for the specific statement DeMint made on CNN -- which is the claim that we’re checking -- DeMint was wrong using either standard. He was off by a few years using raw dollar figures. And when you use tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product -- which is a better yardstick for this sort of comparison -- he was off by six decades. So we rate DeMint’s statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mint-says-federal-government-has-more-revenu/
 


BTW, WWTP, you omitted this from that PolitiFact story:

rulings%2Ftom-false.gif
politifact%2Fphotos%2FDemint_on_CNN.jpg




 
For fiscal year 2010 -- the last year for which final numbers are available -- federal revenue totaled $2.16 trillion. The figure for fiscal year 2011, which is a projection, is $2.17 trillion.

But neither is the highest in U.S. history. Three other years exceeded both years’ figures -- 2006 (with $2.41 trillion in receipts), 2007 (with $2.57 trillion) and 2008 (with $2.52 trillion).

:D How bout that? The highest govt revenue ever, despite the 'evil' Bush tax cuts!
 
As has been said

We have a spending problem and tax cuts are spending. End them.

Hey Dave, what about tax credits, you think they might be spending as well ? ? ? :D

Is a credit the same as a cut? :confused:

Lamar doesn't seem to think so. But everytime I add it up, I keep coming up with: a tax cut = taxes one doesn't have to pay; and a tax-credit = taxes one doesn't have to pay.

This gets confusing.
 
As has been said

We have a spending problem and tax cuts are spending. End them.

:smh: Tax Cuts are NOT spending.

You're operating under the premise that anything you produce is under the govt's ownership and they just 'allow' you to keep the leftovers.

Anytime the govt lays claim on your labor; It's slavery! It don't matter whether it's in a communist country, socialist country or whatever. The definition is the same.
 
Hey Dave, what about tax credits, you think they might be spending as well ? ? ? :D

Is a credit the same as a cut? :confused:

Lamar doesn't seem to think so. But everytime I add it up, I keep coming up with: a tax cut = taxes one doesn't have to pay; and a tax-credit = taxes one doesn't have to pay.

This gets confusing.

I'll explain it from my perspective ...
A tax cut is spending that you do nothing for while you have to do something to get a credit so it's paid for in some way.

:smh: Tax Cuts are NOT spending.

You're operating under the premise that anything you produce is under the govt's ownership and they just 'allow' you to keep the leftovers.

Anytime the govt lays claim on your labor; It's slavery! It don't matter whether it's in a communist country, socialist country or whatever. The definition is the same.

That's not my premise at all. My premise is there is a cost to doing business in America and taxes is the way you pay.
Tax cuts are spending because they could change the tax rates permanently and chose not to, instead they cut taxes for a limited period of time. If they had done nothing, the rates would have reverted back automatically. Cutting taxes without permanent change is an active thing, hence spending.

This slavery talk is alway hyperbolic and an affront to the people who really were slaves.
 
As has been said

We have a spending problem and tax cuts are spending. End them.

Tax cuts are not spending:angry::angry::angry:

They are revenue sources. They can't tax anything unless you earn it, or more accurately your neighbor... the rich man whom you dispise... He can't be taxed unless he earns money. You/He/me is paying for the government. If the government gets unaffordable, you don't ask for more money, you either run it more efficiently or YOU CUT IT. Since we are spending at a rate never before seen in world history, you cut the spending.
 
I'll explain it from my perspective ...
A tax cut is spending that you do nothing for while you have to do something to get a credit so it's paid for in some way.

huh?

That's not my premise at all. My premise is there is a cost to doing business in America and taxes is the way you pay.
Tax cuts are spending because they could change the tax rates permanently and chose not to, instead they cut taxes for a limited period of time. If they had done nothing, the rates would have reverted back automatically. Cutting taxes without permanent change is an active thing, hence spending.

Sooooo, let me see if I have this straight: I work hard as hell and I'm fortunate to recieve a tax cut....Cool! But because the govt allowed me to keep more of MY money, you say it represents an expense to the govt?

Hold on......It's an expense to govt to allow me to keep money I generated from my labor? :smh: Only the govt could convince people of this nonsense.

The whole tax cut argument is so ridiculous, it sickens me! I'll go back to my original statement: How bout that, the highest revenue ever for the govt; under Bush :eek:

Think about how the Federal Reserve is enabling all this militarism abroad by "printing money". What about the Inflation Tax that is putting the poor, middle class and those on fixed-incomes at a disadvantage
 
BTW, WWTP, you omitted this from that PolitiFact story:

rulings%2Ftom-false.gif
politifact%2Fphotos%2FDemint_on_CNN.jpg


Let me help you out. The so called conservatives/libertarians are facted challenged.


<iframe src="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/28/jim-demint/jim-demint-says-federal-government-has-more-revenu/" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
 
Still, for the specific statement DeMint made on CNN -- which is the claim that we’re checking -- DeMint was wrong using either standard. He was off by a few years using raw dollar figures. And when you use tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product -- which is a better yardstick for this sort of comparison -- he was off by six decades. So we rate DeMint’s statement False.

/thread
 
Tax cuts are not spending:angry::angry::angry:

They are revenue sources. They can't tax anything unless you earn it, or more accurately your neighbor... the rich man whom you dispise... He can't be taxed unless he earns money. You/He/me is paying for the government. If the government gets unaffordable, you don't ask for more money, you either run it more efficiently or YOU CUT IT. Since we are spending at a rate never before seen in world history, you cut the spending.

Who said I despise anyone, even you? Please walk away from these talking points and silliness.
The government's not asking for more money, I'm speaking about going back to the rates as they are and not the break that we've been using. It shouldn't be all at once because it would be additional pressure on a fragile recovery but we can afford to raise taxes on the upper earners, the ones who benefitted the most from the break, first.
Again, in what math does only cutting spending work and cutting spending and raising revenue not?

Sooooo, let me see if I have this straight: I work hard as hell and I'm fortunate to recieve a tax cut....Cool! But because the govt allowed me to keep more of MY money, you say it represents an expense to the govt?

Hold on......It's an expense to govt to allow me to keep money I generated from my labor? :smh: Only the govt could convince people of this nonsense.

The whole tax cut argument is so ridiculous, it sickens me! I'll go back to my original statement: How bout that, the highest revenue ever for the govt; under Bush :eek:

Think about how the Federal Reserve is enabling all this militarism abroad by "printing money". What about the Inflation Tax that is putting the poor, middle class and those on fixed-incomes at a disadvantage

If you insist on looking at that way, go ahead. If you don't want to pay any taxes, take that up with a judge (Wesley, is that you?).
There just isn't a rational argument against going back to the actual tax rates other than facile, strawman arguments that don't stand in the face of reality. Bush and the Republicans had a chance to permanently change the rates, they didn't. They set an expiration date for the tax cuts. To not let that date happen is active spending.
Taxes, Dmain, are revenue, tax cuts are spending.
 
whats the difference between tax cuts and welfare..

answer.. drum roll please....

nothing its all free money just people on welfare need it much more...
 
whats the difference between tax cuts and welfare..

answer.. drum roll please....

nothing its all free money just people on welfare need it much more...

I rarely wade into these arguments on this board anymore but I have to respond to this.

Let's take Person A & Person B. Person A & Person B reach an agreement where Person A will perform a certain task for Person B if Person B will pay Person A an agreed amount of money. Person A does the work for Person B & Person B then pays Person A the amount they agreed upon.

The government then comes in & takes a percentage of the money that Person A earned by serving Person B as he wanted. The government gives some of the money that it took from Person A & gives it to Person C for one of the many welfare programs it runs.

If the government starts taking less money from Person A, that is not welfare. The money belonged to Person A in the first place, not the government. The government giving the money that it took from its owner Person A & giving it to Person C is welfare because that money never belonged to Person C to begin with, it was just given to them by an authority that uses force to take resources from those that earn them.

The fruits of your labor don't belong to the individuals that get elected to office, they're just taken from you. Tax cuts aren't the government "allowing" you to keep money that is really theirs; it's the government not "taking" quite as much of the money that belongs to you.

The fact that any of you can seriously believe that keeping more of what you had to go out & earn for it to be yours is equivalent to someone giving that which you never possessed is very dismaying and has frightening implications.
 
Back
Top