Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Government posts biggest monthly deficit ever
Source:
The Washington Times
URL Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news ... -biggest-monthly-deficit-ever/
Published: Mar 7, 2011
Author: Stephen Dinan
Post Date: 2011-03-07 13:31:50 by Happy Quanzaa
Keywords: Obamanomics in Action
Views: 25243
Comments: 35
The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February at $223 billion, according to preliminary numbers the Congressional Budget Office released Monday morning. That figure tops last February’s record of $220.9 billion, and marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red — a modern record. The last time the federal government posted even a monthly surplus was September 2008, just before the financial collapse. Last month’s federal deficit is nearly four times as large as the spending cuts House Republicans have passed in their spending bill, and is more than 30 times the size of Senate Democrats’ opening bid of $6 billion. Senators are slated to vote this week on those two proposals — both of which are expected to fail — and then all sides will go back to the negotiating table to try to work out a final deal.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Happy Quanzaa (#0)
(Edited)
the GOP has been in control of spending for what, 2 months now? And of course before they took office they agreed on a 2-year tax cut extension that added $858 billion to the deficit. So no problem then right?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Over 10 years. That's $85 billion a year. The deficit this year alone is $1.65 TRILLION. Take the tax cut out and the deficit this year is still $1.565 TRILLION. Tax revenues aren't the problem. Spending is the problem.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
No, the tax deal enacted in December raised the deficit $858 billion over 2 years by extending the Bush tax cuts and enacting a new round of payroll tax cuts.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
So what's your point?
The tax cuts for the top 2% income earners (which is what Democrats are pissing and moaning about) cost $41 billion a year. The government deficit will be $1,652 billion this year alone. Raising taxes on that top 2% wouldn't have done squat to close the deficit. The deficit still would have been over $1,600 billion this year.
as usual, he gets it backwards. He bozoed me, because I demanded he tell me who owns the money: the people or the government? [IF the answer were the people then the deficit wasn't "raised" by $858B, it's just that the people kept more of THEIR OWN money...] He doesn't like black-and-white questions like that... instead, he prefers mealy-mouthed platitudes which sound good but mean nothing. If you want to have some fun with him, pin him to the wall with that question, as to who owns the money. ;)
Socialist ass-hats think "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." And yes, that IS from LF's answer to Ben Bernanke, go65, leading disfunctional and delusional socialist of the forum. "You want me to kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, I'll kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, Rebs, or Sioux, or Cheyenne... For 500 bucks a month I'll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind: I'd happily kill you for free." Algren, "The Last Samurai" So what you're say is if the government quit spending so damn much money on bullshit boondoggles then we wouldn't have this problem???
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Extending the "entire" tax cut, plus adding new tax cuts, raised the cost of the package to $858 billion over 2 years. The deficit would be over $400 billion lower this year if we went back to Clinton-era tax rates.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
That would still leave us $1,250 billion in the hole this year. When Clinton left office, federal spending was 19% of the GDP. Federal tax revenues were 19% of GDP. Today, federal spending is 25% of GDP and tax revenues are 17.6% of GDP. Spending is the issue.
True, but if we eliminate foreign aid and poison control centers we can balance the budget, just ask any tea partier. :-) I'll keep telling you, we won't balance the budget through spending cuts, we'll balance it through growth. True, that's because we had one the worst recession since the depression.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
jwpegler, you do know $1,652 billion is not due all next year, right?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Is jwpegler still defending the proven false theory of trickle down? Where cutting taxes spurs growth? Because that never worked and when Clinton raised taxes it did not stop the economy from being hotter than ever. I can't tell what fantasy world preconceived notions are being bandied about by so called conservatives in these discussions. It seems that realists like us argue on Copernican basis while the so called conservatives on these forums adhere to a Ptolemaic world view - in other words - a world of false assumptions not based on actual observational facts.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Our area of disagreement is that he thinks that cutting spending will balance the budget. IMHO he ignores the impact of spending cuts - they will slow economic activity, reduce tax revenues, and leave you where you started in terms of the deficit. we've already seen this scenario play out in several areas including the Baltics, the UK, and Ireland (not to mention our own country in 1937 when spending cuts triggered a double-dip).
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
At this point I am trying to figure out why he and his type are ignoring this - the only reason is politics - the GOP leaders want to hamstring the president and use the spending cuts as a way to do so. Their base takes this meme and runs with it. But it bares no real economic sense. If the private sector is not spending and not investing and not hiring without govt infusion the economy will stall. That's a reality we are living in now. We could always cut spending/programs when the economy starts to grow again.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Clinton cut the Capital Gains tax rate by almost 30% in 1997. Economic growth accelerated after that. Also, the 1990s was the beginning of the internet boom as well as the era when personal computers finally started making a big difference in business productivity.
So you admit you buy the trickle down BS also using incorrect facts? That makes you as stupid as a flat earther. Clinton kept the top capital gains tax rate at 28% until 1997, when he agreed to lower it to 20%. President Bush lowered it to 15% in 2003, where it stands today So clearly the lower rate did squat under Bush and is doing squat now.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Clinton raised taxes in 1993 as part of an effort to reduce the deficit. Here's the result: Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Carter did OK on the economy - Reagan was only .1 more than Carter. Bush and son both had similar numbers. LOL!
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
GDP growth during the Clinton administration: Year following tax increase: 2.5% Overall prior to capital gains cuts: 3.2% Overall after capital gains cuts: 4.7% Year of .com crash: 2.9%
17% inflation and 21% home mortgage interest rates were ok??? Maybe by banana republic standards. You're talking out of your ass again as usual.
Do you really believe the employment/inflation stats of the last three to four administrations? According to you guys Carter was probably the last truthful president. 21% mortgages and not a foreclosure in sight. And I thought you free market traders included banking too.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
A banana republic standard is what we have now where we have lopsided wealth distribution. And back then under Carter we had less credit card debts and few home foreclosures and the dollar of today is worth less than it was under Carter. Reagan era ushered in the credit card debt era and the % of interest on credit card is worse than usury. Also, homes were more affordable back in Carter's era as were autos.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Still better than under Reagan or Bush, who cut taxes far more. How about we simply revert back to the Clinton-era tax rates.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
And credit card interest was tax deductible under Carter, but Reagan bargained that away. Now it's a hidden double tax, but more importantly it's a tax on those small enough to need credit at the higher rates. Another squeeze by the bankers on the middle class.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
And no budget deficit under Carter
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Utter nonsense. First, the very poorest of the poor in America have color televisions, washing machines, dishwashers, cars, iPods/MP3 players, etc. People living in other countries with all sorts of "wealth distributions" don't have these things. Second, there isn't any relationship at all between income distribution and the conditions that the very poorest of the poor have to live in. America is clustered towards the middle in wealth distribution with Singapore and Hong Kong. There are awful countries with wide wealth distributions (Namibia) and narrow ones (Kazakhstan). Wealth distribution has ZERO relationship to how the poorest of the poor live. ZERO. So, focusing on "wealth distribution" doesn't paint an accurate picture of ANYTHING at all. I understand that leftists don't care about accuracy. They only care about political power. I also understand what leftist do with their political power. Pol Pot demonstrated this when he murdered 40% of the Cambodian people. In spite of our problems, I am confident that the people of American will not allow leftist thugs and tyrants to destroy the country.
Talking out of your a-hole again. What a surprise. Carter ran substantial deficits as a percentage of GDP. Certainly not as substantial as Obama. But Carter never had balanced budget. There were no Republicans to stop him from doing so. He had a 100% Democrat Congress. AND 17% inflation and 21% home mortgage rates. Let's not forgot those 55 American Hostages rotting away for more than a year in Iraq. Carter almost single-handily destroyed America. I was there. I know.
How about we scrap the convoluted tax code and replace it with a consumption tax which would stop penalizing producing products in America and start taxing imports at the same rate as American produced products when they are consumed?
No, but I do believe home mortgages rates because I have one at 5% versus 21% under Carter. There is a whole lot of reality here to consider.
Bought with credit and then America defaulted thus contributing to the world economy to crash.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
All of your points are good. Unfortunately, you're wasting your time trying to point out reality to gobsheitwinson. He's a leftist, which means he's either: 1. Mentally incompetent, or You might as well teach poetry to a monkey.
Socialist ass-hats think "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." And yes, that IS from LF's answer to Ben Bernanke, go65, leading disfunctional and delusional socialist of the forum. "You want me to kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, I'll kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, Rebs, or Sioux, or Cheyenne... For 500 bucks a month I'll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind: I'd happily kill you for free." Algren, "The Last Samurai" Carter decreased the debt of Nixon/Ford he inherited by -3.3%. Suck on the truth. It will set you free.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
That would be easier. I don't talk to Godforsaken because I think he can be convinced. I talk to him to educate others that might be reading the thread.
Listen, you need to make up your mind. If you believe that I'm not capable of talking with adults, then don't ping me to your posts.
#2. To: go65 (#1)
added $858 billion to the deficit
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#3. To: jwpegler, happy qanzaa, lucysmom, godwinson, war, skip intro, we the people, ignore amos, a k a stone (#2)
#4. To: jwpegler (#2)
Over 10 years. That's $85 billion a year. The deficit this year alone is $1.65 TRILLION. Take the tax cut out and the deficit this year is still $1.565 TRILLION.
#5. To: go65 (#3)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#6. To: go65 (#4)
No, the tax deal enacted in December raised the deficit $858 billion over 2 years by extending the Bush tax cuts and enacting a new round of payroll tax cuts.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#7. To: jwpegler (#6)
No, the tax deal enacted in December raised the deficit $858 billion over 2 years by extending the Bush tax cuts and enacting a new round of payroll tax cuts.
#8. To: jwpegler (#6)
The tax cuts for the top 2% income earners (which is what Democrats are pissing and moaning about) cost $41 billion a year. The government deficit will be $1,652 billion this year alone. Raising taxes on that top 2% wouldn't have done squat to close the deficit. The deficit still would have been over $1,600 billion this year.
#9. To: jwpegler (#6)
The tax cuts for the top 2% income earners (which is what Democrats are pissing and moaning about) cost $41 billion a year. The government deficit will be $1,652 billion this year alone. Raising taxes on that top 2% wouldn't have done squat to close the deficit. The deficit still would have been over $1,600 billion this year.
#10. To: go65 (#9)
The deficit would be over $400 billion lower this year if we went back to Clinton-era tax rates.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#11. To: jwpegler (#10)
(Edited)
That would still leave us $1,250 billion in the hole this year.
Today, federal spending is 25% of GDP and tax revenues are 17.6% of GDP.
#12. To: jwpegler, go65 (#6)
The government deficit will be $1,652 billion this year alone. Raising taxes on that top 2% wouldn't have done squat to close the deficit. The deficit still would have been over $1,600 billion this year.
#13. To: go65, jwpegler (#11)
I'll keep telling you, we won't balance the budget through spending cuts, we'll balance it through growth.
#14. To: Godwinson, jwpegler (#13)
Is jwpegler still defending the proven false theory of trickle down? Where cutting taxes spurs growth? Because that never worked and when Clinton raised taxes it did not stop the economy from being hotter than ever.
#15. To: go65, jwpegler (#14)
Our area of disagreement is that he thinks that cutting spending will balance the budget. IMHO he ignores the impact of spending cuts - they will slow economic activity, reduce tax revenues, and leave you where you started in terms of the deficit. we've already seen this scenario play out in several areas including the Baltics, the UK, and Ireland (not to mention our own country in 1937 when spending cuts triggered a double-dip).
#16. To: Godwinson (#13)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#17. To: jwpegler, go65 (#16)
Clinton cut the Capital Gains tax rate by almost 30% in 1997. Economic growth accelerated after that.
#18. To: jwpegler, godwinson (#16)
Clinton cut the Capital Gains tax rate by almost 30% in 1997. Economic growth accelerated after that.
#19. To: go65, jwpegler (#18)
#20. To: go65 (#18)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#21. To: Godwinson (#19)
Carter did OK on the economy
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#22. To: jwpegler (#21)
17% inflation and 21% home mortgage interest rates were ok??? Maybe by banana republic standards.
#23. To: Rek, jwpegler (#22)
17% inflation and 21% home mortgage interest rates were ok??? Maybe by banana republic standards.
#24. To: jwpegler (#20)
Year following tax increase: 2.5% Overall prior to capital gains cuts: 3.2% Overall after capital gains cuts: 4.7% Year of .com crash: 2.9%
#25. To: Godwinson (#23)
(Edited)
#26. To: Rek (#25)
#27. To: Godwinson, capitalist eric (#23)
A banana republic standard is what we have now where we have lopsided wealth distribution.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#28. To: Godwinson (#26)
(Edited)
And no budget deficit under Carter
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#29. To: go65 (#24)
How about we simply revert back to the Clinton-era tax rates.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#30. To: Rek (#22)
(Edited)
Do you really believe the employment/inflation stats of the last three to four administrations?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#31. To: jwpegler (#27)
First, the very poorest of the poor in America have color televisions, washing machines, dishwashers, cars, iPods/MP3 players, etc. People living in other countries with all sorts of "wealth distributions" don't have these things.
#32. To: jwpegler (#27)
2. Willfully ignorant.
#33. To: jwpegler, go65 (#28)
And no budget deficit under Carter Talking out of your a-hole again. What a surprise. Carter ran substantial deficits as a percentage of GDP.
#34. To: Capitalist Eric (#32)
You might as well teach poetry to a monkey.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#35. To: go65 (#3)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]