Q. With everyone saying we need to raise taxes, why is the budget deficit falling and has fallen over 57% year to date?
A. Because ExxonMobil paid $30 billion in taxes last year or more than 1% of the Federal budget.
Also, No Need for Tax Hikes, Surplus on Tap for 2009
Brian S Wesbury; Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Senior Economist
Date: 2/5/2007
If you think the offensive production of Peyton Manning and the Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts was spectacular, you ain't seen nothing yet. When January budget data comes out this week, our models predict that tax revenues continued to surge and the federal budget will show a surplus of more than $40 billion.
This would pull the budget deficit on a 12-month moving average basis below $200 billion for the first time since September 2002 - a massive reduction from the peak deficit of $455 billion in the 12-months ending April 2004.
Tax revenues were $2.479 trillion in the 12 months ending in January 2007, a $255 billion increase from the 12 months ending in January 2006. Tax revenues have surged for almost three consecutive years now, ever since the tax cuts of 2003 stimulated a strong economic recovery.
But putting points on the scoreboard is not a guarantee of victory. The defense has to play well too. And for the budget this means spending restraint. Federal spending was $2.667 trillion in the 12 months ending January 2007, a $134 billion increase from the 12 months ending in January 2006.
On a 12-month versus 12-month basis, federal revenues increased 11.5%, while federal spending increased just 5.3%. This is great news. As long as spending growth remains in check, the budget deficit will continue to decline.
In fact, our models expect average tax revenue growth of 9% over the next three years and spending growth of between 4% and 5%. This will generate a well below consensus deficit in FY07 of just $115 billion. Next year in FY08, we forecast a deficit of only $35 billion. On a 12-month basis, we suspect that the budget will move into balance early in FY2009, well before the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office expect.
All of this is fabulous news for the markets. With gridlock holding spending back and the economy continuing to generate spectacular revenue growth, earlier than expected budget surpluses will significantly reduce the odds of tax hikes.
Also, No Need for Tax Hikes, Surplus on Tap for 2009
Brian S Wesbury; Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Senior Economist
Date: 2/5/2007
If you think the offensive production of Peyton Manning and the Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts was spectacular, you ain't seen nothing yet. When January budget data comes out this week, our models predict that tax revenues continued to surge and the federal budget will show a surplus of more than $40 billion.
This would pull the budget deficit on a 12-month moving average basis below $200 billion for the first time since September 2002 - a massive reduction from the peak deficit of $455 billion in the 12-months ending April 2004.
Tax revenues were $2.479 trillion in the 12 months ending in January 2007, a $255 billion increase from the 12 months ending in January 2006. Tax revenues have surged for almost three consecutive years now, ever since the tax cuts of 2003 stimulated a strong economic recovery.
But putting points on the scoreboard is not a guarantee of victory. The defense has to play well too. And for the budget this means spending restraint. Federal spending was $2.667 trillion in the 12 months ending January 2007, a $134 billion increase from the 12 months ending in January 2006.
On a 12-month versus 12-month basis, federal revenues increased 11.5%, while federal spending increased just 5.3%. This is great news. As long as spending growth remains in check, the budget deficit will continue to decline.
In fact, our models expect average tax revenue growth of 9% over the next three years and spending growth of between 4% and 5%. This will generate a well below consensus deficit in FY07 of just $115 billion. Next year in FY08, we forecast a deficit of only $35 billion. On a 12-month basis, we suspect that the budget will move into balance early in FY2009, well before the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office expect.
All of this is fabulous news for the markets. With gridlock holding spending back and the economy continuing to generate spectacular revenue growth, earlier than expected budget surpluses will significantly reduce the odds of tax hikes.
The worst team in NFL history, who is it?
Q. I have did some research on a few of the worst and here is the list below. Many people say its the Lions of this year and that could be. They did go winless but they should have beaten Minnesota, they were ripped badly. They should have beaten the Vikings and were in a few other games. Ill list findings and you can decide for yourself and form your opinion from there. Sacks arent listed because they werent counted back in the day.
1976 Bucs (in 14 games) 0-14 record
9 passing TDs
20 ints
5 rushing tds
9 receiving tds
9 team ints on defense
31 fumble recoveries
412 points given up on defense
1989 Dallas Cowboys in 16 games (1-15 record)
14 passing tds
27 ints
7 rushing tds
14 receiving tds
7 team ints on defense
24 fumble recoveries
393 points given up on defense
2008 Detroit Lions in 16 games (0-16 record)
18 passing tds
19 ints
10 rushing tds
18 receiving tds
4 team ints on defense
32 fumble recoveries
517 points given up on defense
1990 New England Patriots in 16 games (1-15 record)
14 passing tds
20 ints
4 rushing tds
14 receiving tds
14 ints on defense
32 fumble recoveries
446 points given up on defense
1991 Indianapolis Colts in 16 games (1-15 record)
10 passing tds
16 ints
3 rush tds
10 receiving tds
15 ints on defense
27 fumble recoveries
381 points given up on defense
1971 Buffalo Bills in 14 games (1-13 record)
12 tds
32 ints
6 rush tds
12 receiving tds
11 ints on defense
28 fumble recoveries
394 points given up
1980 New Orleans Saints in 16 games (1-15 record)
26 pass tds
22 ints
9 rush tds
26 receiving tds
12 ints on defense
27 fumble recoveries
487 points given up
I do believe that Cowboys team was the worst team ever for one year, I saw them play, but I wont neccesarily pick a person that agrees with me on that.
1976 Bucs (in 14 games) 0-14 record
9 passing TDs
20 ints
5 rushing tds
9 receiving tds
9 team ints on defense
31 fumble recoveries
412 points given up on defense
1989 Dallas Cowboys in 16 games (1-15 record)
14 passing tds
27 ints
7 rushing tds
14 receiving tds
7 team ints on defense
24 fumble recoveries
393 points given up on defense
2008 Detroit Lions in 16 games (0-16 record)
18 passing tds
19 ints
10 rushing tds
18 receiving tds
4 team ints on defense
32 fumble recoveries
517 points given up on defense
1990 New England Patriots in 16 games (1-15 record)
14 passing tds
20 ints
4 rushing tds
14 receiving tds
14 ints on defense
32 fumble recoveries
446 points given up on defense
1991 Indianapolis Colts in 16 games (1-15 record)
10 passing tds
16 ints
3 rush tds
10 receiving tds
15 ints on defense
27 fumble recoveries
381 points given up on defense
1971 Buffalo Bills in 14 games (1-13 record)
12 tds
32 ints
6 rush tds
12 receiving tds
11 ints on defense
28 fumble recoveries
394 points given up
1980 New Orleans Saints in 16 games (1-15 record)
26 pass tds
22 ints
9 rush tds
26 receiving tds
12 ints on defense
27 fumble recoveries
487 points given up
I do believe that Cowboys team was the worst team ever for one year, I saw them play, but I wont neccesarily pick a person that agrees with me on that.
A. First, I respect your objectivity as a Cowboys fan to include a Cowboys team as one of the "finalists" for this dubious honor.
Second, just wondering why there are no teams on this list prior to 1971. There were around 40 seasons of professional football prior to that year. Can we say with any certainty there were no dreadful teams during this almost four-decade period? Perhaps we need to be football historians to know for sure, but although I have little hard data to back it up, we should include the 1958 Packers on this list (who happen to be MY favorite team!). This was the year before Vince Lombardi became head coach. I recall this team only won one game, and was so lax, the coach actually played cards with the players!
But I degress. The teams on your list all have a claim to "the title" (I don't think we can evaluate teams solely on their record, so we can't claim a team is better than Detroit simply because they won one lowsy game).
But my choice would be the 1976 Bucs. Sure, the uniforms that looked like Creamsicles didn't help, but totally apart from their record, this was a team that was truly inept. It's not a knock on their coach (John McKay, who was highly successful at the college level), but was a classic case of the "first-year-of-existance blues." A new coach on a new team with new players (most of them cast-offs from other teams) who never played together before is a recipie for disaster in a competitive league like the NFL. And having the opportunity to actually watch this team in action on occasion reinforced my belief that they were doomed from the start. To have even one victory that year in my view would have been a grand accomplishment.
Gotta give the team & their fans credit, though. They hung in there, eventually established themselves, and eventually made it all the way to Super Bowl champs! So I'm not knocking the Bucs or their fans in general - but that inaugural year of 1976 was just something they all just had to endure.
Thanks for the stats. You gave us good reminders of some teams we might have overlooked. And isn't it encouraging that most of them eventually became World Champions? Hang in there Lion, Saint, and Bills fans -- your day will come someday!
Second, just wondering why there are no teams on this list prior to 1971. There were around 40 seasons of professional football prior to that year. Can we say with any certainty there were no dreadful teams during this almost four-decade period? Perhaps we need to be football historians to know for sure, but although I have little hard data to back it up, we should include the 1958 Packers on this list (who happen to be MY favorite team!). This was the year before Vince Lombardi became head coach. I recall this team only won one game, and was so lax, the coach actually played cards with the players!
But I degress. The teams on your list all have a claim to "the title" (I don't think we can evaluate teams solely on their record, so we can't claim a team is better than Detroit simply because they won one lowsy game).
But my choice would be the 1976 Bucs. Sure, the uniforms that looked like Creamsicles didn't help, but totally apart from their record, this was a team that was truly inept. It's not a knock on their coach (John McKay, who was highly successful at the college level), but was a classic case of the "first-year-of-existance blues." A new coach on a new team with new players (most of them cast-offs from other teams) who never played together before is a recipie for disaster in a competitive league like the NFL. And having the opportunity to actually watch this team in action on occasion reinforced my belief that they were doomed from the start. To have even one victory that year in my view would have been a grand accomplishment.
Gotta give the team & their fans credit, though. They hung in there, eventually established themselves, and eventually made it all the way to Super Bowl champs! So I'm not knocking the Bucs or their fans in general - but that inaugural year of 1976 was just something they all just had to endure.
Thanks for the stats. You gave us good reminders of some teams we might have overlooked. And isn't it encouraging that most of them eventually became World Champions? Hang in there Lion, Saint, and Bills fans -- your day will come someday!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
