Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

buffalonate (94.44)

Federal Tax Revenues Rise 18%

Recs

6

May 13, 2011 – Comments (14)

I believe the federal deficit will significantly decrease within the next calendar year.  For the month of April the deficit was half of what it was last year.  Tax revenues are up significantly.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-11/u-s-budget-deficit-narrowed-by-half-in-april-on-increase-in-tax-revenue.html   We are removing troops from Iraq and pulling many troops out of Afghanistan which will save us around 100 billion a year.  The 2012 budget will also make serious cuts to the deficit.  These three things combined will create huge decreases in the deficit in 2012.  This will push the value of the dollar up and kill the bubble in gold and silver. 

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

Could happen. If the US federal deficit decreases in 2012, and the value of the dollar goes up, foreign governments will be more apt to buy US treasury bonds again. With foreign governments buying treasuries, the federal reserve won't need to purchase them anymore.

Gold and silver would decline, but I don't think it would "kill the bubble". The US debt problems would be far from over.

 

Report this comment
#2) On May 13, 2011 at 11:32 AM, alstry (35.99) wrote:

Interesting...the FEDERAL DEBT is increasing at about a rate of $150 Billion per month....and the current deficit is only decreasing by $40 Billion?

If we stop borrowing....tax receipts will decrease......even further since a HUGE percentage of tax receipts is the deficit.......

Report this comment
#3) On May 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM, buffalonate (94.44) wrote:

The biggest reason for our deficit is the recession killed tax revenues.  We went from a deficit of about 450 billion to 1.2 trillion right before he handed power to Obama according to the Congressional Budget Office.  That had nothing to do with government spending as many claim but the fact that the amount of people getting fired was climbing to 750,000 a month.  A lot of people getting fired kills tax revenue to the government.  In the last 7 months about 1.3 million people have been adding to payrolls and that increases federal tax revenues substantially.   

Report this comment
#4) On May 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM, buffalonate (94.44) wrote:

The biggest reason for our deficit is the recession killed tax revenues.  We went from a deficit of about 450 billion to 1.2 trillion right before he handed power to Obama according to the Congressional Budget Office.  That had nothing to do with government spending as many claim but the fact that the amount of people getting fired was climbing to 750,000 a month.  A lot of people getting fired kills tax revenue to the government.  In the last 7 months about 1.3 million people have been adding to payrolls and that increases federal tax revenues substantially.   

Report this comment
#5) On May 13, 2011 at 12:28 PM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

buffalonate

Do you think the US should borrow money to give back to people in the form of a job, so that the US can collect some of the money back in the form of tax revenue?

Report this comment
#6) On May 13, 2011 at 12:50 PM, TheDumbMoney (51.59) wrote:

Do you know what I hate? 

People who constantly use tons of "......." marks, as if that helps their arguments, or means anything at all, as if there is something else they were meaning to say but it's just not worth saying it.  It's the written equivalent of a "news"caster "reporting" that "people are questioning" something, when in reality "people" are really he/she and her editorial board.  Or it's argument by insinuation.  There is nothing else that has been left unsaid when people write ".....".    "....." is a red flashing symbol that screams vacuity, bombast, and the end of ideas.  It's frigging irritating.

Report this comment
#7) On May 13, 2011 at 2:35 PM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

dumberthanafool,

It appears that your attack is either against me, or the writer of this article. In either case I believe you are not reading the quotes in context. Each instance was a reference to somebodies exact words, thus the quotation.

Report this comment
#8) On May 13, 2011 at 5:20 PM, leohaas (31.08) wrote:

jwebbzor, work on your reading skills before you post!

Report this comment
#9) On May 13, 2011 at 7:13 PM, TheDumbMoney (51.59) wrote:

jwebbzo.....you do?......   You.....don't think I was focusing on what was IN the quotation marks........   ....... ....... ...... ..... .....  See, how it works is......, when you don't like something......, and you are quoting it......., you ALSO put it in quotation marks........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........................

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........................

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........... .............

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........... .............

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ............ ............

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ............ ............

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ............. ...........

twit

(I'm cranky today, sorry.)

Report this comment
#10) On May 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

No, I understood your comment completely. You don't like it when people put quotes around something because the author is implying that the quoted phrase is in someway sub-standard. I'm saying that is not why the quotes were used in the first place. The quotes were used to distinguish the original author's words from the secondary author's words.

Report this comment
#11) On May 14, 2011 at 12:37 AM, mhy729 (29.90) wrote:

...

Report this comment
#12) On May 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM, TheDumbMoney (51.59) wrote:

jwebbzor:

My comment had nothing to do with quotation marks.  It had to do with the ..... that Alstry was using constantly. 

Everyone but you gets this. 

If you could not get it from my original comment, from leohaas' exhortation to you to work on your reading skills, and (even more shockingly) from my response to you, you are just sad. 

Again, let my try to make this as clear for you as possible:  my comment had nothing to do with the quotation marks, yours or anyon else's.  I put the ..... that Alstry was using in quotation marks, because I was quoting him/her/it/them.  As you yourself put it, "[t]he quotes were used to distinguish the author's [that's Alstry's] original words [or in this case, insipid use of inordinate numbers of periods] from the secondary author's [that's me, jwebbzor] words." 

Can I possibly make that any clearer for you?  Can I?  Please let me know if we need to have a back and forth about this for forty more comments until you understand it.  Thanks.

Report this comment
#13) On May 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

Funny how I didn't get that... I have a PhD in english.

Report this comment
#14) On May 19, 2011 at 10:57 PM, TheDumbMoney (51.59) wrote:

Not a good sign, jwebbzor!  :-) 

Here is how you didn't get it:  Multiple periods can also signify the deletion of words in a quote.  If one uses three periods, it means an intra-sentence deletion.  If one uses four periods, it means an end-of-sentence deletion or a deletion that cuts into multiple sentences.  Since I was putting the "..." in quotation marks, and not using any words at all, you assumed I was putting the focus on the quotation marks by not even including the actual quoted material, according to one or both of the above-stated rules.

With all due respect, this assumption was likely made because you had not read all of the various comments (including, happily for you, Alstry's, with the bajillion insipid, pointless periods), or, you were mainly coming back to see what people had said about yours, because, let's face it, we're all mainly interested in what we said, and in what others are saying about it.  Because that was your focus, you were predisposed to make the incorrect assumption above, dispite the fact that (as you point out, actually), my criticisms would not really apply in that context. In short, as with most market mistakes, your mistake was not one of intelligence, but instead of human psychology.

I was an English major, too, actually.  Can you tell? :-)  

I was also the kind of English major who ultimately decided that way, way too much literary criticism, particularly of the work of anyone whose life-story is well-documented, devolves into a pseudo-psychological analysis of the author, written by someone who doesn't have a degree in psychology.  (In part because that's what mine devolved into.)  Can you tell?  :-)  

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement