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: 24641
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 # 34.
#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:
Carter did OK on the economy - Reagan was only .1 more than Carter. Bush and son both had similar numbers. LOL!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 34. End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
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.
#19. To: go65, jwpegler (#18)
#21. To: Godwinson (#19)
Carter did OK on the economy
#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.
#27. To: Godwinson, capitalist eric (#23)
A banana republic standard is what we have now where we have lopsided wealth distribution.
#32. To: jwpegler (#27)
2. Willfully ignorant.
#34. To: Capitalist Eric (#32)
You might as well teach poetry to a monkey.
Replies to Comment # 34.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]