Year Total On-budget1 Receipts Outlays Surplus or deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or deficit (–) 1789–1849 $1,160 $1,090 $70 $1,160 $1,090 $70
1850–1900 14,462 15,453 –991 14,462 15,453 –991 \
1905 544 567 –23 544 567 –23
1910 676 694 –18 676 694 –18
1915 683 746 –63 683 746 –63
1920 6,649 6,358 291 6,649 6,358 291
1925 3,641 2,924 717 3,641 2,924 717
1930 4,058 3,320 738 4,058 3,320 738
1935 3,609 6,412 –2,803 3,609 6,412 –2,803
1940 6,548 9,468 –2,920 5,998 9,482 –3,484
1945 45,159 92,712 –47,553 43,849 92,569 –48,720
1950 39,443 42,562 –3,119 37,336 42,038 –4,702
1955 65,451 68,444 –2,933 60,370 64,461 –4,091
1960 92,492 92,191 301 81,851 81,341 510 1965 116,817 118,228 –1,411 100,094 101,699 –1,605 1970 192,807 195,649 –2,842 159,348 168,042 –8,694 1975 279,090 332,332 –53,242 216,633 271,892 –55,260
1980 517,112 590,947 –73,835 403,903 476,618 –72,715 1985 734,088 946,423 –212,334 547,918 769,615 –221,698
1990 1,032,094 1,253,130 –221,036 750,439 1,028,065 –277,626
1995 1,351,932 1,515,884 –163,952 1,000,853 1,227,220 –226,367
2000 2,025,457 1,789,216 236,241 1,544,873 1,458,451 86,422
2001 1,991,426 1,863,190 128,236 1,483,907 1,516,352 –32,445
2002 1,853,395 2,011,153 –157,758 1,338,074 1,655,491 –317,417
2003 1,782,532 2,160,117 –377,585 1,258,690 1,797,108 –538,418
2004 1,880,279 2,293,006 –412,727 1,345,534 1,913,495 –567,961
2005 2,153,859 2,472,205 –318,346 1,576,383 2,069,994 –493,611
2006 2,407,254 2,655,435 –248,181 1,798,872 2,233,366 –434,494
2007 2 2,540,096 2,784,267 –244,171 1,905,966 2,332,984 –427,018
2008 2 2,662,474 2,901,861 –239,387 1,988,389 2,439,334 –450,945
Read more: Receipts and Outlays of the Federal Government, 1789–2008 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html#ixzz1LINc8KW3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am assuming that GMIB stands for "Gawd My Ignorant Brain".
Your poorly displayed chart proves my point. If you'll notice, the last time we enjoyed surpluses was 2000. What were the tax rates? What percentage of GDP was going into the Treasury?
Right now we are bringing in about 15%/GDP, which you and other "bright lights" have suggested doesn't constitute a problem. Please tell me, when is the last time we enjoyed a surplus bringing in only 15%/GDP? Seriously - I'm anxious to learn what you find. Perhaps - perish the thought - you'll learn something as you look for the answer.
No, it doesnot display what you claim it does and it displays just fine.
What it displays is that spending...spending...now just be honest for a moment and read the word...spending has only grown and has now exploded. You may wish to make your weak percentage of GDP argument, however we are just spending too much.
Deny as you wish, but it is what it is.
It doesn't take a legislator, Doc Stroessner, to figure out if your maths adds up. Just use the Google machine.
When is the last time we had revenues of 15%/GDP and enjoyed a surplus?
If "we don't have a revenue problem" and we are bringing in 15%/GDP, there must be myriad recent examples of balanced budgets at that revenue level, right?
There is no way you would suggest "revenue is fine" if it was far short of meeting our spending levels of the past 60 years. Would you? I mean, if you really cared about balancing the budget...
Then let's go back to the the "Clinton" spending levels. they had doubled by 2008.
they are "doubling" very quickly now.
so we are undertaxed because, as the posts demonstrates, spending is wildly increasing?
You just can't handle the truth.
Actually, Doc, I would go back to Clinton spending levels as a percentage of GDP, as adjusted by the aging of America. Obviously, Medicare and Social Security have more recipients today, as a percentage of the population, than they did in 2000. That would take us from 18%/GDP (Clinton era) to 21%/GDP.
So - lets hear it, Doc. When did the federal government last have a surplus bringing in only 15%/GDP?
Suggesting that we do not have a revenue problem today is ignorant or dishonest. Which camp do you fall in?
Post a Comment