|
It's amazing how many people think they can balance the budget by cutting say, foreign aid.
Posted on 08/10/2005 11:15:11 AM PDT by SierraWasp
BULLETIN >> U.S. FEDERAL DEFICIT SHRINKS TO $53 BLN IN JULY
|
It's amazing how many people think they can balance the budget by cutting say, foreign aid.
Accurate in that the projection for 2005 is about $100B off? If I'm reading it correctly, it shows about $450B pm the chart. Yep, nats a** accurate.
If no one is able to get even the quarterly GDP numbers correct on a regular basis, how are projections to 2010 even worth putting out?
We all like what we like. My preference is to always have a lot of money left over at the end the month. I know a lot of people who brag about paying fewer bills than I do, even though they always seem to have so much month left over at the end of the money.
Thanks.
Sometimes when the trolls come here trying to get freepers to vote third party with budget talk, it's easy to forget just what's going on here.
|
I hear people whining about republican spending increases, even when most of these increases were for repairing the damage to defense that the Democrats did.
Damn right STAY ANGRY.
""You realize that the 53 billion shortfall is for one month, right? So far this year, we're over 300 BILLION in the red. Go ahead and celebrate. Woopdidoo.""
No Genius
in June the budget was in Surplus by $69b.
Each month at teh end of a quarter plus April have large budget surpluses, others have large deficits (this was the case even in the surplus year of 2000)
The good news here is that the budget deficit was expected to be $59b. So it came in $7b short. Or in other words we could be in for a $85b improvement in the budget deficit for this calendar year
"''Something's not adding up Huck. I don't think we have ever accumulated $53B of deficit in one month. That would be an annual run rate of $636B. Certainly, nobody would be crowing about that.""
Read my post
""BUSH IS A SPENDING MACHINE.... NEEDED TO AFTER 911 SINCE DEFLATION WAS A ISSUE BUT HE CONTINUES TO SPEND LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR.........""
Why dont you read the story. Spending came in less than was forecast..
There is no such thing as good economic news on FR, nor is there any sense of perspective.
On the other hand, the nation languished economically in the low-deficit 60s
What the heck are you talking about? I may not be an economic historian, but I'm an economist, and I can see the numbers prove you wrong. The 1960's (1960-1969) had the highest average annual real GDP growth of any decade since WW2. It was 4.1% in the 50's, 3.3% in the 70's, 3.1% in the 80's and 90's, and a whopping 4.4% the 1960's! And that's even counting the last two years (1968 & 69) in which Johnson escalated the Vietnam war.
If you don't believe me, do the math yourself:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls
At any rate, I don't think anyone seriously argues that deficits are a large short-term drag on the economy. In fact, occaisional deficits can help kick an economy out of recession. They're problematic in the long run for a many reasons . For example, high levels of debt reduce our financial flexibility. It would be a heck of a lot easier to reform social security right now if we were not $8 trillion in the hole.
High debt burden results in high debt service payments that the government makes. That greatly reduces available revenue should an expensive emergency arrive, like the need to fight another war, for example. Having a large debt burden in non-emergency times also reduces our ability to borrow money when we really need it.
And finally, if the level of debt grows faster than the economy for too long, a country will simply be unable to meet its obligations without draconian tax increases and/or cuts in social services. Usually it's politically easier to inflate or default than to take such measures, which creates an even bigger long-term disaster. Now I realize we're not even close to that point yet, but if we continue on our current course, and experience some national emergency, we could get there a lot sooner than many people think.
The 87 crash did not lead to a recession. The early 1990's recession that was largely responsible for Clinton coming into office started in the summer of 1990.
Huck was right. Read the article. We're already above 300 billion this fiscal year, which we're already 10 months into. Unless we have large surpluses for the next two months, we are very likely to finish with a deficit over $ 300 billion by the end of the year.
Not by much, and it's way too high.
Nice-- I hadn't realized how much of a difference the calander month makes on the deficit. Then again, it only makes sense that months like April have got to be big with revenue.
So we can expect a bigger surplus in Sept.
read what was said before my post.
August will be a large deficit and Sep a large surplus.
$300b is probably where we'll be for the year and that would be about 2.5% of GDP. For 2005 FY the debt/GDP ratio will have fallen
It sure seems that way-- but maybe our perceptions are being skewed by the difference in noise levels between us and the third-party trolls. I'm thinking that we probably have more numbers even if they may have more decibels.
I hope you're right, but we'll see. At any rate, it's still not good enough, especially considering the fact that we're not counting all our unfunded liabilities in the debt figure.
Debt/GDP is also bad metric because you should be using NNP in the denominator. GDP fails to subtract capital consumption and profits earned by foriegners in the US, both of which are significant.
We're in for a fiscal crisis in less than 10 years if we don't do something about both our debt and our unfunded liabilities, and Bush has been doing next to nothing with either.
In fact, Bush has worsened the problem with that disgusting medicare bill. Not that the Rats would do any better, mind you. If Kerry were president, I have no doubt he would have increased unfunded liabilities more the twice the amount Bush increased the national debt. But Bush's fiscal record is still awful.
If the pentagon as well as other goobermint agencies routinely "lose" a few billion here and there...how can anyone really take this number seriously?
See the charts in my book, "The Entrepreneurial Adventure."
profits earned by foreigners if repatriated to their home country are most certainly counted in GDP. If profits stay here, there is no difference between profits earned by foreigners and US citizens
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
