Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:29 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: No one else cares, "U.S. posts unexpectedly large budget surplus for June" Back to Topics
btc1

Champion Author
Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 8:56:44 AM

Since no one else brought this up, I thought I would.

"The surplus in June also highlighted how much an improving economy and existing legislation have helped improve the fiscal outlook. That has made overhauling public pension and healthcare systems a little less pressing.

Rising incomes and tax increases enacted earlier in the year helped cause government receipts to rise to $287 billion in June, up 10 percent from a year earlier. While economic growth has been lackluster in the first half of 2013, job growth has been more steady. In June, 195,000 jobs were added to the nation's nonfarm payrolls.

Across-the-board budget cuts that began in March also contributed to the surplus.

Gross outlays at the Department of Defense and for military programs, for example, are down about 7 percent in the fiscal year to date from the same period a year earlier. The current fiscal year began in October 2012."

117 Billion Surplus for June.

[Edited by: btc1 at 7/12/2013 8:57:26 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,485
Points:2,909,625
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 19, 2013 6:56:22 PM

>>Once again, I conceded that you were accurate in your statement on two of the three points after putting the data together, which did surprise me I must confess.<<

Thank you, EZ, although I still consider the FY 2010 and 2011 spending numbers "about the same".

Also, unlike many people on this site (and those who blog in general, I suspect), I'm pretty careful about what I post. Sure, I have my opinions, but if I don't feel I have the facts on my side, I simply won't post.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2013 5:17:02 PM

The U. S. Public Debt is still larger than ever.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2013 5:15:05 PM

Nick: <<<"Since FY 2009, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every year.">>>

--The above is the statement of yours is the one that I challenged. You'll see also that I later came back and did quite a bit of hunting and pecking for accurate numbers to disprove your statement, but ended up proving 2 of your points right, and the third point of yours wrong. I went by years because that is how you framed your statement, and a monthly basis oscillates too much to offer any sort of a trend for multiple reasons.

Also, your link went to a recent year-to-date balance sheet, that only offered data back to a year previous, and does not offer the rest of the data that you proffered. I dug through each end of fiscal year's treasury balance sheets and compiled my data a few posts ago. Once again, I conceded that you were accurate in your statement on two of the three points after putting the data together, which did surprise me I must confess. Like I said, I am anti-spin, I read the numbers exactly as they are, and will call it what it is, even if it means conceding an argument here and there.

[Edited by: EZExit at 7/18/2013 5:16:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2013 5:03:37 PM

Approximate U. S. Public Debt Subject to Limit after the can was kicked down the road again: $16,844,000,000,000.

We appear to have crashed through the debt ceiling AGAIN $23 billion ago.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2013 4:50:01 PM

But, maddog, your Republican God, Reagan, tried to convince us deficits are good!
Profile Pic
maddog57
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:148,438
Points:3,003,665
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2013 9:35:56 AM

Fiscal year-to-date, the budget deficit sits at $510 billion.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2013 5:16:15 AM

EZExit, "--So, since 2009, the deficit has indeed "shrank". On this point, I concede Nick was right."

Thank you. You are a reasonable person.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,485
Points:2,909,625
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 11:24:07 PM

>>PS: Nick, I specialize in anti-spin numbers, I call it as it is, this is a case where the numbers never lie. Next time you want to take a position with me and use numbers, and you don't include all the data to back up your argument, your odds of winning a numbers argument with me will fall to zero.<<

EZ, I see you have posted a lot of numbers. I agree that the numbers don't lie, and neither do I. Here is what you quoted me writing, and what you called "almost correct":
- "Since FY 2009, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every year."

You posted a lot of numbers and, frankly, I have no idea where you're getting your receipts and outlays numbers from. I get my annual numbers from here or here. They align pretty well with the numbers from the Treasury, and their numbers can be found in their back issues.

Receipts (in Billions of Dollars)
2009 2,104
2010 2,162
2011 2,302
2012 2,449

"receipts have grown...every year" - check!

Outlays
2009 3,520
2010 3,456
2011 3,599
2012 3,538

"outlays have remained about the same" - no more than a 2.24% variance from 2009 - above or below - for any following year, with 2012 being only .5% higher than 2009. Yeah, I'd call that "about the same". Sure, you could nitpick about the 4.1% difference from 2010 to 2011, but that's a small enough difference that I'm comfortable using the word "about".

Deficit
2009 1,416
2010 1,294
2011 1,297
2012 1,089

"the deficit, while still high, has shrunk" - you could make an argument for 2010 to 2011, as it went up a teeny bit, but on the whole, it's much lower.

 

Now, let's verify your claim:
- "Since February 2013, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every month."

I'm not sure why you need to look at "the treasury's reports by year", since February 2013 was only 5 months ago. I'm pretty sure we can obtain all of that information from the link I provided in my previous post.

Receipts (in Millions of Dollars)
Feb 122,815
Mar 186,018
Apr 406,723
May 197,182
Jun 286,627

"receipts have grown...every month" - you forgot about May and June

Outlays
Feb 326,354
Mar 292,548
Apr 293,834
May 335,914
Jun 170,126

"outlays have remained about the same" - I'm not sure I'd call differences of over 10% almost every month and a difference of almost 50% "about the same"

Deficit
Feb 203,539
Mar 106,350
Apr -112,889
May 138,732
Jun -116,501

"the deficit, while still high, has shrunk...every month" - those alternating positive and negative numbers are a sure give away on this one.

It looks like your statement is wrong on ALL counts (well, depending on your definition of "about").

 

So, there you go. All the numbers, and links to all the numbers. I'd say I won the numbers argument with you. And, yeah, I do have a warm and fuzzy feeling all over.



[Edited by: NickHammer at 7/17/2013 11:29:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 9:25:08 PM

Weasel: <<<"I am certainly not saying that either party 'doesn't' have a spending problem...">>>

--Agreed 110%!
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 9:24:22 PM

…and I dug through numbers for our spending…
1998 spending $2.9 trillion
1999 spending $3.1 trillion
2000 spending $3.2 trillion
2001 spending $3.4 trillion
2002 spending $3.7 trillion
2003 spending $3.9 trillion
2004 spending $4.1 trillion
2005 spending $4.4 trillion
2006 spending $4.7 trillion
2007 spending $4.9 trillion
2008 spending $5.3 trillion
2009 spending $6.0 trillion
2010 spending $5.9 trillion
2011 spending $6.1 trillion
2012 spending $6.0 trillion
2013 spending $6.2 trillion projected
2014 spending $6.3 trillion projected
2015 spending $6.6 trillion projected
2016 spending $7.0 trillion projected

--Since 2009 spending did fall one year, then up, then down, then up again.
On this point, Nick was wrong.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 9:23:56 PM

…and I dug through for numbers for the revenue,
1998 revenue $3.2 trillion
1999 revenue $3.5 trillion
2000 revenue %3.7 trillion
2001 revenue $3.5 trillion
2002 revenue $3.3 trillion
2003 revenue $3.5 trillion
2004 revenue $3.9 trillion
2005 revenue $4.2 trillion
2006 revenue $4.7 trillion
2007 revenue $5.2 trillion
2008 revenue $4.7 trillion
2009 revenue $3.7 trillion
2010 revenue $4.7 trillion
2011 revenue $5.1 trillion
2012 revenue $5.1 trillion
2013 revenue $5.4 trillion projected
2014 revenue $5.8 trillion projected
2015 revenue $6.2 trillion projected
2016 revenue $6.6 trillion projected
2017 revenue $7.0 trillion projected
2018 revenue $7.4 trillion projected

--So since 2009, the revenue has grown. On this point, I concede Nick was right.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 9:23:16 PM

OK, I dug through the numbers for the "deficit" since 1998, results as follows:

1998 deficit- $.03 trillion
1999 deficit- $.01 trillion
2000 surplus- $.24 trillion
2001 surplus- $.13 trillion
2002 deficit- $.16 trillion
2003 deficit- $.37 trillion
2004 deficit- $.41 trillion
2005 deficit- $.32 trillion
2006 deficit- $.25 trillion
2007 deficit- $.16 trillion
2008 deficit- $.46 trillion
2009 deficit- $1.4 trillion
2010 deficit- $1.3 trillion
2011 deficit- $1.3 trillion
2012 deficit- $1.1 trillion
2013 deficit- projected $.64 trillion*
2014 deficit- projected $.56 trillion*
2015 deficit- projected $.38 trillion*
2016 deficit- projected $.43 trillion*
2017 deficit- projected $.48 trillion*
2018 deficit- projected $.55 trillion*
2019 deficit- projected $.69 trillion*
2020 deficit- projected $.73 trillion*
2021 deficit- projected $.78 trillion*
2022 deficit- projected $.89 trillion*
2023 deficit- projected $.90 trillion*

*CBO projects 6.3 trillion growth in deficit through 2023 as things are now.

--So, since 2009, the deficit has indeed "shrank". On this point, I concede Nick was right.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 4:52:18 PM

I am sorry EXExit, the particular information I was referencing is the NATION BY THE NUMBERS chart at the end of each annual report to make it easier for you.

And johnnyg and weaslespit, this little tidbit is from the conclusion of the 2010 report from the FMS.

"The United States took a potentially significant step towards fiscal sustainability in 2010 by enacting the ACA. The legislated changes for Medicare, Medicaid, and other parts of the health care system hold the prospect of lowering the long-term growth trend for health care costs and significantly reducing the long-term fiscal gap. Buteven with the new law, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projectedto increase continually over the next 75 years and beyond if current policies are kept in place, which means current
policies are not sustainable. " At that time current policies did not include the PPACA.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,223
Points:458,470
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 2:18:27 PM

"If I remember right, we were told Obamacare was supposed to be budget neutral."

I am certainly not saying that either party 'doesn't' have a spending problem...
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 2:03:07 PM

EZExit, let me pose this to you. Looking at the Annual Fiscal Report of the US Government for each year, there is only one year where the deficit increases, 2011, by $600B or so.

However, it did increase close to 1T in the 2009 year report, which started with Oct. 2008 and was Bush's last budget year.

So tell me what do you make of this?

09

10

11

12

Nick gave you a link to the current information.

"THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE is a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury, providing central payment services to Federal Program Agencies, operating the federal government's collections and deposit systems, providing government-wide accounting and reporting services and managing the collection of delinquent debt owed to the government." They should know best about the state of the Government's deficit.


[Edited by: btc1 at 7/17/2013 2:04:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 11:41:53 AM

LOL! Good to know.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 11:28:06 AM

btc, I'll admit, when some of you try to form numbers into something they're not, and I am able to eviscerate them into what they are without even trying, it really DOES give me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over :)
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 11:23:40 AM

EZExit, your ego is all glowing, it is blinding me all the way over here. It must be great to be you, according to you.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 11:14:50 AM

In case anyone wants to look up and verify my statement, I used the treasury's numbers from more than one year, as Nick's link only gives the past fiscal year's numbers. When someone makes a statement of years since 2009, than it would be prudent to verify those numbers over the sametime period as the concocted claim.

You'll see, that <<<"Since February 2013, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every month.">>> if you go to the treasury's reports by year, and take the numbers accordingly. You'll have to take the time and pull the information from each fiscal year from this real numbers from each of the year's reports from the Treasury

PS: Nick, I specialize in anti-spin numbers, I call it as it is, this is a case where the numbers never lie. Next time you want to take a position with me and use numbers, and you don't include all the data to back up your argument, your odds of winning a numbers argument with me will fall to zero.


[Edited by: EZExit at 7/17/2013 11:17:09 AM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,485
Points:2,909,625
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 10:26:41 AM

>>--Your almost correct, let me fix this for you...<<

In fact, I'm exactly correct.

>>Since February 2013, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every month.<<

Actually, you're not even close to correct. But in case anyone took your claim seriously, here are the real numbers from the Treasury.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 1:21:28 AM

Nick: <<<"Since FY 2009, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every year.">>>

--Your almost correct, let me fix this for you...

Since February 2013, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every month.

--Under every sequester is a silver lining!
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,029
Points:978,000
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 12:27:39 AM

>>>"Now, you can see who the *big* spenders are. Keep in mind also that the CBO estimates that ObamaCare© will also add $1.7 Trillion over the next 10 years on top of everything else..."

Some people seem to struggle with 'perspective' on some items - this is a perfect example.<<<<

If I remember right, we were told Obamacare was supposed to be budget neutral.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,485
Points:2,909,625
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 12:21:08 AM

I care. Thank you for bringing this up, btc. Through June, government receipts total over 260 billion more than the same time last year, while outlays are over 130 billion less. Of course, month by month numbers are rather volatile, so we'll have to wait 3 months to see where we are at the end of this fiscal year.

Since FY 2009, receipts have grown, outlays have remained about the same, and the deficit, while still high, has shrunk - every year.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,223
Points:458,470
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 1:32:24 PM

"Now, you can see who the *big* spenders are. Keep in mind also that the CBO estimates that ObamaCare© will also add $1.7 Trillion over the next 10 years on top of everything else..."

Some people seem to struggle with 'perspective' on some items - this is a perfect example.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 12:38:54 AM

Obama-$6.7 Trillion in 4.5 years; 1.07 Trillion per year average.
Bush-$4.35 Trillion in 8 years; .54 Trillion per year average.
Clinton-$1.61 Trillion in 8 years; .20 Trillion per year average.
Bush Sr.-$1.46 Trillion in 4 years; .37 Trillion per year average.
Reagan-$1.95 Trillion in 8 years; .24 Trillion per year average.

Now, you can see who the *big* spenders are. Keep in mind also that the CBO estimates that ObamaCare© will also add $1.7 Trillion over the next 10 years on top of everything else...
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,865
Points:1,029,875
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jul 13, 2013 9:23:21 AM

Interesting how none of these folks cared about the national debt until January 20, 2009...

Prior to then, it seems they were all "Dick Cheney conservatives"; i.e., "Reagan proved Deficits don't matter"

SMH
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 13, 2013 9:05:34 AM

Not really jeski. I was referring to the Build Act of 2010. Infrastructure investment by public and private funds that would have created thousands of jobs. That one in particular.

But, the Republicans said NO. No to thousands of jobs and infrastructure improvements. Those obstructions.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:9,684
Points:1,776,885
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jul 13, 2013 8:09:08 AM

btc1 said: "headway is being made in spite of your consternation and obstructionist policies."

Oh, you mean the "obstructionist policies" which prevented Obozo from jumping over the sequestration hurdle that he was responsible for putting in place?
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 13, 2013 5:27:58 AM

How much did Bush really spend? This is before his re-election and does not include more war spending nor TARP.

"This shell game with federal trust funds taints all official forecasts about Bush?s deficits going forward. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Bush?s cumulative ten year deficit at $2.3 trillion, to be sure, a breathtaking shortfall from the $5.6 trillion surplus he inherited from Clinton. But as with the yearly number, this one ignores the trust fund sleight of hand, an omission of some $2.4 trillion. When this is added back in, Bush?s ten year deficit leaps to $4.7 trillion, $10.3 trillion short of Clinton?s number.

But even that number is understated because the CBO forecasts are based on current law. Bush?s tax cuts have not yet been made permanent. If Bush is re-elected and the cuts are made permanent, that would add another $3.2 trillion to the shortfall."

So really if you add in the amount of surplus Bush had coming and the continuation of his tax cuts he spent 13.5 Trillion by October 22,2004. His first term.

Now if you add the additional spending of his second term, you will see it is not Obama who spent us into this debt.



[Edited by: btc1 at 7/13/2013 5:32:07 AM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 13, 2013 12:34:11 AM

More math *fun facts*...

The government finding $117 billion in "surplus" for the month is akin to someone that makes $100,000 per year, that will spend $139,000 this year, and increase spending by $39,000 each year thereafter, with a credit card balance currently of $655,000, finding $4,531 in a couch cushion and thinking they are well on their way to correcting their poor financial condition.

They would need to find $39,000 in that couch cushion just to cover the increase in spending for the year, let alone even touching the credit card bill, which is continually being charged up and the compounding interest.

[Edited by: EZExit at 7/13/2013 12:39:13 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,063
Points:3,211,460
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jul 13, 2013 12:02:21 AM

I'd tell you that I don't believe it. And if we did have a surplus, does that mean we're going to retire $117 B in public debt?
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:14,472
Points:2,942,030
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 11:57:05 PM

"No one else cares, "U.S. posts unexpectedly large budget surplus for June""

Sounds like some good news I certainly wasn't expecting.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:59:12 PM

EDIT: Math mistake, 9.29 years to get to 6% unemployment at current rate of job growth, in unchanged population.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,029
Points:978,000
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:48:55 PM

This kind of reminds me of the guy that has ten thousand dollars in credit card debt. If he works overtime and makes an extra one hundred dollars he thinks he’s rich and goes on a eleven hundrid dollar spending spree. At the end of the day he is right back where he started but now he is eleven thousand dollars in debt plus the added interest. In the end something has to give.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:48:10 PM

More fun facts:

The amount of US currency in existence: $3,254,868,000,000
The amount of US debt is $16,912,460,000,000

If we gather every single piece of US currency in existence, and give it to the government, we would only pay 19.24% of our debt balance.

Number of jobs created in June: 195,000
Number of people now unemployed: 22,260,840
6% unemployment will only take 44.2 years to achieve at this rate, if the population remains unchanged.

...Just since we're bringing up US budget and economic *fun* facts nobody else wants to bring up :)

[Edited by: EZExit at 7/12/2013 7:54:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,272
Points:396,520
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:33:01 PM

No, I meant deficit which is the additional borrowing needs of the government. Once that is gone then it can start going towards the debt which is all the previous budget deficits added together that have yet to be paid back.

Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:21:47 PM

To the right, headway is being made in spite of your consternation and obstructionist policies.

Go ahead, show how much you hate that. Continue on...

[Edited by: btc1 at 7/12/2013 7:22:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,833
Points:953,000
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 6:18:14 PM

"And the sequester didn't have ANYTHING to do with the surplus (which isn't a surplus until the deficit is gone in my book)."

Perhaps you meant the National Debt, which continues to increase by a million dollars every 50 seconds.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,272
Points:396,520
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 6:07:12 PM

And the sequester didn't have ANYTHING to do with the surplus (which isn't a surplus until the deficit is gone in my book).
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,182
Points:2,045,280
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 6:04:17 PM

Since btc didn't also bring this up, I thought I would...

By my calculations, if we neither increase spending or increase revenue from what it is today (during the sequester mind you), it will take 6,406 years to get to the point where we can START to pay down the debt, and that is based on today's debt, not the debt 6,406 years from now.

Real numbers kind of let the air out of the puff piece, doesn't it?

[Edited by: EZExit at 7/12/2013 6:06:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 4:56:25 PM

Which, btw, nstrdnvstr, came from a bail out of them by the Obama Administration.

No one has even inferred that, no1doc. But, we are now making headway under the Obama administration, to many a chagrin from the right.

[Edited by: btc1 at 7/12/2013 4:58:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 4:54:26 PM

There will never be a true surplus until the 17 trillion dollar debt is paid off.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,388
Points:4,319,680
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 4:23:43 PM

Much of that "surplus" came from dividends paid from Freddie and Fannie. Some came from the sequester.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:39:03 PM

I75, "As for me, I won't give 0bama credit for it.......you know how it goes!" Of course I know how it goes. Just like McConnell's failures, you are a good Republican.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,865
Points:1,029,875
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 11:06:41 AM

"Yeah, the sequester helped. But, did the Republicans not blame that on Obama as his idea in the first place? "


Of course they did...but now that its having positive effects (lowering the Deficit), they can't give him credit, so must take it themselves...And I'm sure they'll do the same thing with Obamacare...

SMH
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,421
Points:2,769,845
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 11:03:16 AM

Congress (both houses) and the Prez did agree in 2011 to schedule the budget sequester as insurance against a budget impasse. The impasse occurred (right on schedule) and the sequester went into effect.

The results might not be all bad!
While I support a balanced federal budget, this one month does not a year make, but it is certainly good news if it is sustainable. As for me, I won't give 0bama credit for it.......you know how it goes! The economic recovery is still slow, employment numbers are not good, and demands for more spending are out there. The federal government needs to keep passing workable budgets and living within them.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 10:36:36 AM

I75, "In a related matter, tell us how many bank-owned properties (i.e. homes the banks have foreclosed and seized) the banks are still holding on to, and when will they begin to sell those?"

I am wondering about that too. There is one in my neighborhood, that I know of, that should have a value of about $150-$160,000. They did have it listed at one time for $104,000 and it did not sell. So it has just sat there for 4 more years. They just have someone mow the grass, occasionally.

Yeah, the sequester helped. But, did the Republicans not blame that on Obama as his idea in the first place?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,421
Points:2,769,845
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 10:18:20 AM

"Across the board budget cuts that began in March..." ---> Credit the budget sequester passed by Republican-led House last year.

From the link in the OP:
" big payments to the Treasury from government-backed mortgage companies helped the government take in $117 billion more last month than it paid out..."

and

"Fannie Mae, which said in May it would return $59 billion to the Treasury in quarterly dividends, provided most of the funds."

And also from the link in the OP, a link to a related story:
Fed buys $13.3 billion of mortgage bonds, sells none
"The Federal Reserve bought $13.3 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities from July 4 through July 11, less than the $16.9 billion it purchased last week, the New York Federal Reserve Bank said on Thursday."

So, the Federal Reserve buys securities from Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae pays back money it owes to the Treasury, it looks like a surplus, when in actuality is is more unfunded-fiat money the Fed is using to prop up the economy and housing market.

In a related matter, tell us how many bank-owned properties (i.e. homes the banks have foreclosed and seized) the banks are still holding on to, and when will they begin to sell those?

The housing market is still a bubble, this time being pumped up by the Fed.



[Edited by: I75at7AM at 7/12/2013 10:19:38 AM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics