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: 26211
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clinton raised taxes in 1993 as part of an effort to reduce the deficit. Here's the result:
#19. To: go65, jwpegler (#18)
Carter did OK on the economy - Reagan was only .1 more than Carter. Bush and son both had similar numbers. LOL!
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%
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: go65 (#1)
added $858 billion to the deficit
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#16. To: Godwinson (#13)
#18. To: jwpegler, godwinson (#16)
Clinton cut the Capital Gains tax rate by almost 30% in 1997. Economic growth accelerated after that.
Replies to Comment # 18.
#20. To: go65 (#18)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]