Quantcast

Great News!!! Federal deficit now lowest in 4 years

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
:cheers:

Federal deficit now lowest in 4 years
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years.

The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing President Bush an economic bragging point as Republicans go into the final four weeks of a battle for control of Congress.

Both spending and tax revenues climbed to all-time highs. The sharp narrowing of the deficit reflected the fact that revenues climbed by 11.7 percent, outpacing the 7.3 percent increase in spending.

The 2006 deficit was far lower than the $423 billion figure the administration had projected last February and also represented an improvement from a July revised estimate of $295.8 billion.

It was the smallest deficit since a $159 billion imbalance in 2002, a shortfall that came after four straight years of budget surpluses, the longest stretch that the government had finished in seven decades.

Since that time, the government has recorded three of the biggest deficits in history in dollar terms including an all-time record of $413 billion in 2004.

The reason for the improvement this year was the big jump in revenues, propelled by strong economic strongth.

The administration credits its tax cuts for the improving economy, contending they helped the nation withstand the 2001 recession, the terrorist attacks and a wave corporate accounting scandals.

Democratic critics, however, contend that this year's improvement in the deficit will be only temporary. They contend the deficit is set to explode over the next decade as the baby boomers begin to retire and demands on Social Security and Medicare increase.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,419
22,507
Sleazattle
On the right track but that is only the annual deficit. It is like a company celebration only loosing 250 billion because they had lost 500 billion the year before.
 

macko

Turbo Monkey
Jul 12, 2002
1,191
0
THE Palouse
Oops... i forgot... good news for America is bad news for liberals.


:p
I'm glad our deficit is not as bad this year as it was last. That's great news! Relatively speaking...

G.W. Bush's avg annual deficit is -$256.3 Billion
Clinton's avg annual deficit was -$40.0 Billion

Sure, neither are great. But one is "less bad" than the other.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,419
22,507
Sleazattle
some economists say no... that would be bad news..

To use a BurlyShirley analogy, some people drink their own pee too.

Deficit spending over a short period of time is not bad but continuous deficit spending is bad. We spend 160 trillion a year in interest payments, the more deficit spending we do the more we pay. I'll concede that it wouldn't be that bad to continue an anual deficit that kept the interest payments at the same % of the overall budget but that is not easily controlled. If we started into a serious recession it would limit the governments ability to control said recession as the interest payments would become a more significant burden.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
I'm glad our deficit is not as bad this year as it was last. That's great news! Relatively speaking...

G.W. Bush's avg annual deficit is -$256.3 Billion
Clinton's avg annual deficit was -$40.0 Billion

Sure, neither are great. But one is "less bad" than the other.

Of course Clinton achieved a short term deficit reduction by cutting military spending... a bill that was eventually going to have to be paid up.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
They were discussing this on NPR today. The source of the "extra" money was from taxes collected from the huge corporate profits (like Exxon etc). Supposedly, while this is good news in the short term, it will likely just make the problem THAT much worse in the future. SOMEONE will have to pay for the war eventually. And luckily for Bush, it won't be his problem.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
They were discussing this on NPR today. The source of the "extra" money was from taxes collected from the huge corporate profits (like Exxon etc). Supposedly, while this is good news in the short term, it will likely just make the problem THAT much worse in the future. SOMEONE will have to pay for the war eventually. And luckily for Bush, it won't be his problem.
Wasnt it said that Iraq will have to repay the US for its "liberation" after all is said and done? Considering their resources, if we're ever successful, I dont think thats an amount to be underestimated.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Wasnt it said that Iraq will have to repay the US for its "liberation" after all is said and done? Considering their resources, if we're ever successful, I dont think thats an amount to be underestimated.
Dunno.....but they also cited, health care, social security and all that other communist crap as further expenses the US won't be able to afford
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Congratulations, you only racked up $40,000 of credit card debt this year, compared to the $80,000 you put on last year and $100,000 the year before (neither of which have been paid off).

You get a cookie.

(who ever would've thought republicans would be the ones excusing defecit spending and even advocating it. this is just one of the many reasons I'm not a republican anymore...)
 

trailhacker

Turbo Monkey
Jan 6, 2003
1,233
0
In the hills around Seattle
Of course Clinton achieved a short term deficit reduction by cutting military spending... a bill that was eventually going to have to be paid up.
And Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield made sure that the people that paid to put them in office are getting that bill paid.
From an economic standpoint they are getting exellent returns on their investments. War is good business...
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
Wasnt it said that Iraq will have to repay the US for its "liberation" after all is said and done? Considering their resources, if we're ever successful, I dont think thats an amount to be underestimated.
IIRC, the actual idea was that Iraq's oil reserves would allow Iraq to finance its own reconstruction. The amount that we pay into it, however, is not coming back.
 
Aug 31, 2006
347
0
This Administration is heading in the right direction. Kudos to them.

oh man, I crack myself up sometimes. This admin should bathe in their own feces.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus

skinny mike

Turbo Monkey
Jan 24, 2005
6,415
0
didn't we have a surplus of $236 billion before bush? and how is it a good thing to always be in debt?
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
didn't we have a surplus of $236 billion before bush? and how is it a good thing to always be in debt?
Someone who knows this better than I do can probably explain it better (or not get it wrong if I get it wrong) but I believe the argument goes like this:

If you run a surplus, you are taking away too much money in taxes, so the peoples' buying power is lower and it hurts the economy. If you run at a deficit, you can still fund all the programs you want to fund, while allowing people to have cash on hand to keep buying things and keep the economy rolling.
 

skinny mike

Turbo Monkey
Jan 24, 2005
6,415
0
Someone who knows this better than I do can probably explain it better (or not get it wrong if I get it wrong) but I believe the argument goes like this:

If you run a surplus, you are taking away too much money in taxes, so the peoples' buying power is lower and it hurts the economy. If you run at a deficit, you can still fund all the programs you want to fund, while allowing people to have cash on hand to keep buying things and keep the economy rolling.
wasn't the economy doing very well at the end of the clinton administration?
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
wasn't the economy doing very well at the end of the clinton administration?
Yes, it was, due to the dot com bubble.

Edit: That isn't to say that I agree with the above argument. I don't think it is always a good idea to run a deficit because then you end up owing money all the time, like we do now. I certainly wouldn't do that with my personal finances.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Yes, it was, due to the dot com bubble.
LOL!!!

Defense Cuts Lower Budget Deficit
A review of the 1992-95 budget data shows a dramatic change in the levels of one spending category affected by policy changes -- discretionary defense spending. If this defense spending had remained at its $303 billion level of 1992, the deficit adjusted for major economic and accounting factors would have been virtually unchanged since 1992. Total increases in other federal spending categories would have just about equaled the amount of higher tax revenues between 1992 and 1995. However, discretionary defense spending had been cut $29 billion during this period. This cut in defense spending accounts for 115 percent of the $26 billion reduction in the adjusted deficit.

Outside of the defense category discussed, there has been virtually no net deficit reduction due to policy. The 1993 tax increase merely funded an increase in other federal spending. Moreover, deficits would be higher if President Clinton's proposed "stimulus," or "investment," spending increases had not been stopped by the Republican minority in Congress. To the extent nondefense deficit reduction has been realized, it is due to stopping, not implementing, President Clinton's policies.

-Joint Economic Committee Study
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Someone who knows this better than I do can probably explain it better (or not get it wrong if I get it wrong) but I believe the argument goes like this:

If you run a surplus, you are taking away too much money in taxes, so the peoples' buying power is lower and it hurts the economy. If you run at a deficit, you can still fund all the programs you want to fund, while allowing people to have cash on hand to keep buying things and keep the economy rolling.
the politicians and talking heads who are pushing this are the same ones who 10 years ago were clammoring for a balanced budget amendment. surprise surprise, when the president that they oppose runs a defecit, they call for a balanced budget. when the president they support runs a much, much bigger one, they call it good economics. :banghead:
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
the politicians and talking heads who are pushing this are the same ones who 10 years ago were clammoring for a balanced budget amendment. surprise surprise, when the president that they oppose runs a defecit, they call for a balanced budget. when the president they support runs a much, much bigger one, they call it good economics. :banghead:
Hey man, don't kill the messenger.:biggrin: