PDA

View Full Version : Deficit down $259 billion from last year, to date



Soflasnapper
07-15-2011, 06:27 PM
From the WSJ online (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576444202308329060.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The U.S. deficit for June 2011 came in at $43.08 billion, less than June 2010, which was $68.42 billion. For the first nine months of fiscal 2011 the deficit was $970.52 billion, a figure that is smaller than the $1.29 trillion deficit for the same period in the prior fiscal year. </div></div>

HEADS EXPLODE!!!, video at 11.

From the comments section, more detail:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> According to the original Bloomberg report:

Individual income tax receipts so far this fiscal year rose 24.3 percent to $814.9 billion. Corporate
income tax receipts rose 1 percent to $134.3 billion.

Spending by the government fell 8.4 percent in June from the same month last year to $292.7 billion.

So yes, spending did decrease, Johnathan Murray. And the revenue increase shows virtually no increase from corporations--just individuals. I wonder why. </div></div>

Now, how is it that personal income tax receipts went up by 24.3 freaking percent year to date over last year to this date?

Just guessing, revenues from the new job holders?

WHAT NEW JOB HOLDERS??? you ask? Perhaps you need to look into it a bit more to understand there ARE NEW JOBHOLDERS. (New jobs have averaged 160,000 per month, x 6 months = 936,000 new jobs this calendar year.)

BTW, this is the SECOND year the deficit has fallen by over $200 billion, if this $259 billion less through 9 months of the fiscal year holds up through to its end.

Facts you don't often hear, I'm sure.

LWW
07-16-2011, 04:26 AM
Are you honestly so desperate to defend the regime that you brag the democrooks have shrank the deficit to a mere 600% of the deficit they inherited?

Soflasnapper
07-16-2011, 11:45 AM
You are lazy and perhaps tired to offer up that old stale chestnut again. It's been rebutted, repeatedly.

Which inapposite figure (and year) are you planning to use this time?

I guess you mean from when the Democrats took the Congress, but you're probably a) using a year too soon (they didn't control the budget as of when they came in as of '07, but only as of FY '08, from Oct. '07 forward), b) using the misleading and wrong deficit number that excludes the war costs ($150 billion+), and c) pretending something extra they did caused the deficit to explode to its projected 2009 level (as if their legislative program always intended to put TARP in place).

Here's what the CBO report said about 'the deficit they inherited,' meaning what they said would happen in the FY 2009 budget, what was baked in the cake under tax law and the economic situation, before Obama did one single thing:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The major slowdown in economic activity and the policy
responses to the turmoil in the housing and financial
markets have significantly affected the federal budget. As
a share of the economy, the deficit for this year is anticipated
to be the largest recorded since World War II.
Under the rules governing CBO’s budget projections—
that is, an assumption that federal laws and policies
regarding spending and taxation remain unchanged—the
agency’s baseline reflects these key points:

B CBO projects that the deficit this year will total
$1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an
economic stimulus package would add to that deficit.
</div></div>

From this CBO report, page 9 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf)

Sev
07-16-2011, 11:48 AM
And if Obama gets his extra 2.5 trillion in redistributing cash?

Soflasnapper
07-16-2011, 12:10 PM
Don't know exactly what the figure comes from, or if it is still an operative number, but it surely is a 10-year figure. I suspect it is no longer on the table (if you're referring to his prior proposed budget, that is now a dead letter).

LWW
07-16-2011, 02:31 PM
I guess you are.

sack316
07-16-2011, 04:23 PM
I'm pretty tired, so maybe I'm thinking wrong here somehow. But from this we see:

A) Tax receipts to date equals roughly $949.2 billion through June (averaging $158.2 billion per month).

B) Spending for June, though significantly less than last year, was $292.7 Billion

C) $158.2-292.7= <span style="color: #FF0000">-134.5</span>

OK granted step in right direction and technically the vernacular of your post is correct according to how government presents its figures. But it sure seems misleading to me that phrases such as "deficit down" can correctly be used when spending still exceeds receipts. (Note: that's not directed at you necessarily sofla, more a general thought of mine).

It's like if I made 100 bucks per month last year through June. I spent 200 bucks a month on my credit card last year through June. This year I got a raise and I'm making $125 per month through June. And I decreased my credit card spending per month to date to $175.

Last year I'm $600 in the red. This year I'm $300 <u>more</u> dollars in the red. If I were the government, I'd basically say I reduced my CC deficit by $300... and it would sound like a good thing. Nevermind my actual debt increased by 50%, because I reduced my year-year deficit, right?

Sack

Soflasnapper
07-17-2011, 11:07 AM
I hear you. Still, this is the question that the figures raise, regardless of whether this evident progress is good enough.

Why is there progress at all? We've been told that things are getting worse and worse, that there are no new jobs at all, that claims there are new jobs is a lie, and that all persons in the country, even people with jobs, are doing worse.

This progress is due to the arithmetic result you get when you find the government spending is down 8% (year over year), AND personal income tax receipts are UP 24% (year over year).

Where is the quite large increase in personal income tax receipts coming from? I guess if all those with jobs received 24% annual raises, that might result in 24% more revenues from income taxes, but most people are not getting raises at that level, if any level at all. (CEO types, Wall Street brokers, etc., may have gotten such percentage raises, but cannot by themselves account for a 24% increase of the TOTAL income tax payments.)

As we've heard, a lot of the new jobs out there are at the lower wage levels, and such job holders may very well pay nothing in personal income taxes.

So I find this fact contradicts a lot of what we've been told about the state of the economy not improving. It must be improving for these numbers to be true. Higher income people must have had gains, AND some of the jobs created must be paying higher than claimed wages, so as to have the new job holders paying income taxes.

It also puts the lie to any claim that O is continuing to spend still more than ever (as spending is down 8% year to date over last year).

LWW ignores the questions raised by these numbers to snidely change the subject to somewhere he thinks he has a better talking point. Still, the question is clearly raised, and there are no answers I can come up with other than those I suggest above.

And since this marks the SECOND annual $200 billion+ decline in the deficit, both likely setting the record for an annual decline in deficits, DURING THIS CRAPPY ECONOMY, the stories we've heard and the claims that have been made appear simply false.

From the CBO's baseline forecast of a $1.2 trillion deficit, Obama's policies as passed by Congress added about $200 billion to FY 2009, an increase of 16.7%, not 600%. Since those one time new programmatic expenditures, each year has seen what are probably record levels of deficit decreases.

eg8r
07-18-2011, 11:46 AM
Amazing how this works, the Government spends less, revenues increase (but recognize this was not from a tax rate increase on the rich) and what do we have as a result...slower debt increases. OK, once again for gayle and qtip...government spends less, income taxes come in debt slows down (ever get to zero? Doubtful).

I am all for this model continuing to move in this direction. Find a way to get these people working again and continue dropping government spending and I think we will see a snowball effect happen with respect to debt reduction.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-18-2011, 01:02 PM
It's a paradox, in that more people can be working, and yet the unemployment rate stay the same or go UP.

Why? Because the UE is defined according to persons in the workforce (and eligible and seeking UE benefits), and workforce participation levels are down, some people (at record levels) are so long-term unemployed that their eligibility has timed out, expired, and others have simply given up looking in this economic environment.

If as many people by percentage of adults were actively seeking work, the 9% or so current EU would be 11+% right now, and I mean with the normal U2 or U3 standard, not the U6. As bad as the U6 number is, given the now lowered participation level of adults in the workforce, its level of whatever (18%? 22%?) it is now would be still higher by 2 or 3 percentage points as well.

Critics may rightly point to the unchanging, and even growing, EU numbers, but wrongly infer nothing good can possibly be happening, even as income tax receipts soar in even such a year we've been having by that 24%.

Obviously, one of the largest factors in the deficit is the underemployment of the workforce, and its shrinking participation percentage. If a policy could yield us a better employed population, that alone could shrink the deficit by probably over half.

What policy would that be? Something that doesn't deliberately contract the workforce (i.e., avoiding hundreds of thousands of government jobs lost), or cause a substantial drop of demand from baseline demand from where we are now (i.e., letting the spending go down by itself, through the sunsetting of stimulus measures, and the decrease in benefit outlays as the people go back to work, NOT a deliberate slashing of baseline expenditures).

Obama opponents understand the contractionary effects of tax increases (which do exist, just not to a great degree on tax increases on the wealthiest), but fail to understand the contractionary effects of big cuts in spending levels.

llotter
07-18-2011, 01:07 PM
Government is on a cash basis so it is relatively easy to manipulate the numbers but the reason may also be related to the Tea Party landslide last November but I can't recall specific spending cuts that have been enacted since that big event.

Soflasnapper
07-19-2011, 05:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government is on a cash basis so it is relatively easy to manipulate the numbers but the reason may also be related to the Tea Party landslide last November but I can't recall specific spending cuts that have been enacted since that big event. </div></div>

We have a winner!

That's right, there have been no big cuts (Obama's freeze on whatever it was, federal workers' wages? forget, but it was not a large difference in one year to another, given a formal 0% cpi), AND there have been no special programs other than Obama's, none from the new Congress, to foster income increases or job increases that would lead to any income tax receipt increases.

SO, we must conclude this is the result of Obama's policies (his stimulus spending was to be over two years, and is now tapering off to zero, which accounts for some of the drop in spending as well).

These are POSITIVE results, surely, not negative results, not a worsening situation on these two parameters.

LWW
07-20-2011, 05:05 AM
Actually ... that's a delusion.

Following recessions the economy usually has an immediate growth spurt of between 5% and 10%.

This economy, as has been demonstrated to you, is still in decline when the books are looked at cleanly.

Gayle in MD
07-20-2011, 08:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government is on a cash basis so it is relatively easy to manipulate the numbers but the reason may also be related to the Tea Party landslide last November but I can't recall specific spending cuts that have been enacted since that big event. </div></div>

We have a winner!

That's right, there have been no big cuts (Obama's freeze on whatever it was, federal workers' wages? forget, but it was not a large difference in one year to another, given a formal 0% cpi), AND there have been no special programs other than Obama's, none from the new Congress, to foster income increases or job increases that would lead to any income tax receipt increases.

SO, we must conclude this is the result of Obama's policies (his stimulus spending was to be over two years, and is now tapering off to zero, which accounts for some of the drop in spending as well).

These are POSITIVE results, surely, not negative results, not a worsening situation on these two parameters.

</div></div>

Until Murdoch's sheep wake up and realize that Repiglican policies of deregulation, and low tax revenues, IOW, spending for the wealthy in the form of huge loopholes for corporations, that pay no taxes, while racking up unprecedented profits, hedge funders, munti billionaires, have led to declinging wages continuously for the Middle Class, we have little chance to have a robust recovery.

The fact is, the Bush tax cuts have rfedistributed wealth to the top wealthiest, who hid their money in low tax or no tax opportunities provided by Repiglicans, at the expense of all the rest of Americans.

Repiglicans make absurd statements, such as, "We don't have a revennue problem, we have a apending problem, and all the while they are spending us into oblivion, with their tax policies, which provide no opportunity for job growth!

The top one percent, are NOT job producers!!!!

Stupidity on the part of the right, is our biggest national threat!

The latest NBC/Wall St. Journal polling is somewhat encouraging, however. At least, independents are beginning to see the light, when it comes to the repiglican policies.
G.

LWW
07-20-2011, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we have little chance to have a robust recovery.

G. </div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>WHAT THE AITCH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!</u></span></span></span>

Do I have to dig up the quote where you declared the recession over and the US in an economic boom because of Obama's stupidonomics?

Can you at least decide which story you believe?

What's that?

You believe them both because the regime demands it of you?

Soflasnapper
07-20-2011, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually ... that's a delusion.

Following recessions the economy usually has an immediate growth spurt of between 5% and 10%.

This economy, as has been demonstrated to you, is still in decline when the books are looked at cleanly. </div></div>

Normal recessions are caused by the Fed increasing interest rates, and solved by the Fed reducing interest rates.

Neither of those apply in this case, as the Fed has run into the zero bound for interest rates, and cannot take them lower (they are running at negative real rates already).

Soflasnapper
07-20-2011, 12:42 PM
Test.

eg8r
07-20-2011, 01:02 PM
LOL, her flip flopping is hilarious.

eg8r

LWW
07-20-2011, 04:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, her flip flopping is hilarious.

eg8r </div></div>

Bots are like that.

LWW
07-20-2011, 04:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually ... that's a delusion.

Following recessions the economy usually has an immediate growth spurt of between 5% and 10%.

This economy, as has been demonstrated to you, is still in decline when the books are looked at cleanly. </div></div>

Normal recessions are caused by the Fed increasing interest rates, and solved by the Fed reducing interest rates.

Neither of those apply in this case, as the Fed has run into the zero bound for interest rates, and cannot take them lower (they are running at negative real rates already). </div></div>

How do you continue to "GET IT" without ever actually getting it?

The US economy should have went though a bad recession following the dot.bomb debacle ... but Clinton wanted a Gore presidency as a legat and did everything he could to kick the can down the road.

Bush won anyway, and tax cuts briefly pulled us out of the tail spin ... I recently provided you with this data which you cordially burned in the memory hole ... and then Bush wanted re-elected and a McCain presidency as a legacy so the can was kicked again.

Now dear leader wants a second term ... hence the can has been kicked again.

We are staring into the abyss of another great depression because neither party, 3 regimes, 7 sessions of congress, and the American people have all convinced each other that we never have to eat our peas.