WP: Fed budget deficit for October: $176.36 billion

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ironic, since we were talking about this in another thread

176 BILLION for the FIRST MONTH of the fiscal year

Contrast this with the "record" deficits Bush had in the middle part of this decade which were around 400 billion for the ENTIRE fiscal year. So, in one month we are getting HALF of the record YEARLY deficits that we had just a mere 6 years ago :doh:


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/11/fed_budget_deficit_for_october.html?hpid=topnews

Fed budget deficit for October: $176.36 billion
The federal budget deficit for October rose more than expected to $176.36 billion, the government announced moments ago, up from $155.53 billion in October 2008.

The total national debt -- the sum of all deficits from the beginning of the republic until today -- is now up to nearly $12 trillion.

A healthy economy should not have a deficit that's more than about 3 percent of its GDP. Even with a GDP that's gone positive in the third quarter, the U.S. deficit now projects out to about 11 to 12 percent of GDP. And that's scary.

This is the largest October deficit on record. It is the first month of fiscal 2010.

Link from 2003

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/bush.budget/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vowing to be a good steward of the public's money, President Bush sent to Capitol Hill Monday a $2.2 trillion 2004 budget that calls for hundreds of billions in tax cuts and shows a record federal deficit of $304 billion.

[The Evil Genius]

If you are so worried about it - feel free to send a check.

:evilg:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091112/us_nm/us_usa_economy_budget_gifts


Mail the checks to the attention of Department G, Post Office Box 2188, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-2188. Make a note in the memo section that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So let me see if I understand this correctly; you want to compare Bush's Fed deficit to Obama's even though Bush didn't have TARP added to his deficit until the last couple months of his administration?

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

[SkinsHokieFan]

So let me see if I understand this correctly; you want to compare Bush's Fed deficit to Obama's even though Bush didn't have TARP added to his deficit until the last couple months of his administration?

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

There is no comparison at all, except that in 1 MONTH of the fiscal year, we are at 1/3 of the deficit as we were in an ENTIRE fiscal year just 6 years ago

It should demonstrate how dire the situation is

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is no comparison at all, except that in 1 MONTH of the fiscal year, we are at 1/3 of the deficit as we were in an ENTIRE fiscal year just 6 years ago

It should demonstrate how dire the situation is
6 years ago was an eternity ago.

[SkinsHokieFan]

6 years ago was an eternity ago.

So was 10 years ago.

What is the point you are trying to make? That we should keep digging with stimulus plans and health care bills?

[Predicto]

There is no comparison at all, except that in 1 MONTH of the fiscal year, we are at 1/3 of the deficit as we were in an ENTIRE fiscal year just 6 years ago

It should demonstrate how dire the situation is

Just curious. Did that figure include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? It is my understanding that Bush left the war costs off of his official budget, and Obama put them back on the books.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Just curious. Did that figure include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? It is my understanding that Bush left the war costs off of his official budget, and Obama put them back on the books.

As we have discussed time and again, you can "hide" the numbers yet that debt factor does go up, either way.

So if we really want to see it, we can chart the delta in debt from FY 2003 to FY 2005

My real point was, just a mere 6 years ago, 300+ billion dollar deficits were causing heads to explode. Today we are have an actual deficit of 176 billion, in the FIRST MONTH of the fiscal year

Seeing that both parties (mostly Republicans though) are responsible for this, its a disaster

[AsburySkinsFan]

So was 10 years ago.

What is the point you are trying to make? That we should keep digging with stimulus plans and health care bills?

The point is that the situations on the ground are completely different its like comparing 2001's deficit with 2003's when we were fighting two different wars, oh and the health care bill according to the CBO is deficit neutral.

[gbear]

1) War spending was off budget

2) Economy was booming (especially in comparisson to this year) and so was tax revenue as a result.

At the federal level, spending has to be smoothed out to not change drastically with the seasonal adjustments to the market. I use seasonal adjustment term because timing wise the swings are fairly predictable if not the magnitude. I do not use this term to mean "yearly" only to mean "periodic" and semi predictable swings. I don't know the term for adjustments due to market cycles as I'm having an MS moment searching for the term.

You want the smoothing so the market can make plans around the government and count on it to fulfill its commitments. A reliable, stable government is a friend to the economy. Nobody likes to invest in an economy if they worry the gov will just stop buying or providing like they did last year according to some unpredictable reason.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Seeing that both parties (mostly Republicans though) are responsible for this, its a disaster

Sure it is, but how do you get out of it? Health Care is deficit neutral, the wars don't end overnight, what do you want to cut? I guess we could try and get our TARP money back faster.

[DjTj]

What's interesting is that we are actually spending less money than we did last October.
Treasury's monthly budget statement shows receipts were $135.33 billion in October, down 18% from a year earlier and at the lowest level since October 2002. Meanwhile, outlays were $311.69 billion, down 3% from a year earlier and at their second-highest monthly level on record.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125805524231245829.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So we're cutting spending, but not as fast as we are losing revenue.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Sure it is, but how do you get out of it? Health Care is deficit neutral, the wars don't end overnight, what do you want to cut? I guess we could try and get our TARP money back faster.

:hysterical: at health care being deficit neutral. In 10 years, I have a feeling those of us that are skeptical on that will be correct (just like with all other gov't spending plans)

TARP 2.0 should have been cancelled

Why are we potentially escalating Afghanistan?

The stimulus bill...

[AsburySkinsFan]

:hysterical: at health care being deficit neutral. In 10 years, I have a feeling those of us that are skeptical on that will be correct (just like with all other gov't spending plans)
So you're basing your opinion off your skepticism rather than on actual data...got it


TARP 2.0 should have been cancelled
So unemployment could have hit 10% in June rather than Nov?


Why are we potentially escalating Afghanistan?
Because it is the one war that we are fighting that is actually legitimate.


The stimulus bill...
Saved how many jobs?

[Ellis]

The whole world is watching!!!
The whole world is watching!!!
The whole world is watching!!!

[AsburySkinsFan]

What's interesting is that we are actually spending less money than we did last October.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125805524231245829.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So we're cutting spending, but not as fast as we are losing revenue.

Crappy economy equals fewer taxes, might as well blame the President.

[SkinsHokieFan]

So you're basing your opinion off your skepticism rather than on actual data...got it

Its "data"

Actual data was also projecting surpluses well into this decade back in 1999 and employment peaking around 8.5 percent without the stimulus plan



So unemployment could have hit 10% in June rather than Nov?

What difference does that make? We are still at 10.2 percent



Because it is the one war that we are fighting that is actually legitimate.

So, 30k+ troops cost no money?


Saved how many jobs?

10.2 percent unemployment.

And of course this graph. So based on "data" what good did spending 787 billion do?

http://www1.ibdcd.com/image/A1web_103009_FULL.gif

[AsburySkinsFan]

Its "data"

Actual data was also projecting surpluses well into this decade back in 1999 and employment peaking around 8.5 percent without the stimulus plan
Who knew in 1999 that Bush would invade Iraq? :whoknows:


What difference does that make? We are still at 10.2 percent
Fine go unemployed for 5 months and you tell me how big a difference it makes.


So, 30k+ troops cost no money?
Who said they didn't? Besides that with the draw down in Iraq the numbers will offset one another and then before long there will be more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq until there are no more troops in Iraq. What's your point?


10.2 percent unemployment.

And of course this graph. So based on "data" what good did spending 787 billion do?
Ever wonder what that graph would have looked like without the spending? Nahh course not.

But then like was stated earlier, we are spending less as a country the real problem is that the tax revenue is down as such the deficit goes up.

facts and all that silliness.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Who knew in 1999 that Bush would invade Iraq? :whoknows:

Exactly. Trying to state something is "Deficit neutral" over 10 years is sillyness






Who said they didn't? Besides that with the draw down in Iraq the numbers will offset one another and then before long there will be more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq until there are no more troops in Iraq. What's your point?

Look at a map. Afghanistan is land locked between Pakistan and Iran. The cost per troop in Afghanistan will far exceed Iraq, where we have easy access with supplies in and out of Kuwait. Its not an open desert with roads, its some rough mountains to get troops in and out of there



But then like was stated earlier, we are spending less as a country the real problem is that the tax revenue is down as such the deficit goes up.

Outlays are down a mere 3 percent this October, while revenue is down 18 percent. So of course the solution is to spend more money, right?

As for the graph WITHOUT the spending, that is exactly what the White House did project. You know, using "data" that you love to look at. According to the White House, unemployment would be LESS now without the spending :)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Exactly. Trying to state something is "Deficit neutral" over 10 years is sillyness
Then on the same token so is saying that it won't be, heck things could dramatically improve right? I guess its just easier to want it to be negative.


Look at a map. Afghanistan is land locked between Pakistan and Iran. The cost per troop in Afghanistan will far exceed Iraq, where we have easy access with supplies in and out of Kuwait. Its not an open desert with roads, its some rough mountains to get troops in and out of there
The troops and equipments levels in Afghanistan will not equal was was in Iraq. The only way your prediction comes true is if we replaced the Afghan force with the Iraqi force, that does not seem at all likely.


Outlays are down a mere 3 percent this October, while revenue is down 18 percent. So of course the solution is to spend more money, right?
The money is already budgeted. In my church just because giving was down in August doesn't mean that we stop spending our budget allocations because we know that December and January will more than compensate.


As for the graph WITHOUT the spending, that is exactly what the White House did project. You know, using "data" that you love to look at
Wrong, the graph shows that even Without the spending their estimates for umployment wouldn't be as high as they are now, which means that the actual numbers without spending would probably have us in the 13-15% range.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Wrong, the graph shows that even Without the spending their estimates for umployment wouldn't be as high as they are now, which means that the actual numbers without spending would probably have us in the 13-15% range.

I don't see where you get that conclusion from.

The WH projected without spending that unemployment would peak around 8.5 percent, and with spending around 7.6 percent

You are assuming that just because we spent and just because Joe Biden said so that jobs were created or saved :hysterical:

Per the data we ACTUALLY have, we spent 787 billion and unemployment is at 10.2 percent. There is no way to say for certain where unemployment would be without the ARRA, unless we create a world without it (which is impossible)

The data we do have is that the WH projected unemployment to top out at 8.5 percent without the ARRA.

Thusly, we spent the dough. The deficit has gone up. And we are worse off then we projected to be without spending the dough. Those are the conclusions I draw

[AsburySkinsFan]

Those are the conclusions I draw
Of course they are because you went into this with a particular set of presuppositions and you are thus trying to square your presuppositions with the reality as it now is. By your logic the stimulus plan caused a 2+% jump in unemployment. Doesn't it seem much more likely that both the anticipated with and without spending numbers were lower than what really happened? Nahhh, couldn't be that because that doesn't fit the presupposition.

[mardi gras skin]

Then on the same token so is saying that it won't be, heck things could dramatically improve right? I guess its just easier to want it to be negative.

Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. What has congress done in the past to assure you that they will be willing to cut Medicare when the time comes to follow through on their promise to make this deficit neutral?

Back on the main point, they've really beefed up the deficit clock thing. Pretty cool. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[AsburySkinsFan]

Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

I disagree with that premise on the basis that its wholly based on fatalism.

[mardi gras skin]

I disagree with that premise on the basis that its wholly based on fatalism.

Certainly congress could decide that they are willing to follow through and cut medicare spending. And FOX news could decide they'll become fair and balanced tomorrow, right?

But you and I both know that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

[Duckus]

What's interesting is that we are actually spending less money than we did last October.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125805524231245829.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So we're cutting spending, but not as fast as we are losing revenue.

That is actually really interesting. I would never have though that we are spending less now that we did last October.

The lack of revenue is really what has created those numbers in the OP.

[Hubbs]

Of course they are because you went into this with a particular set of presuppositions and you are thus trying to square your presuppositions with the reality as it now is.

Holy crap, my irony meter just exploded.