CBO: Deficit thru 3 quarters $251B vs. $327B year ago

MarketWatch.com (by Dow Jones) ^ | 7-7-05 | Staff???

[SierraWasp]

5:34 CBO: Deficit thru 3 quarters $251B vs. $327B year ago

5:32 CBO: Federal deficit could fall to $325B this year

[k2blader]

*LOL*

Meanwhile (also from the CBO):

Figure 1-1.

---

Potential Range of Social Security Outlays and Revenues Under the Scheduled Benefits Scenario

---

(Percentage of GDP)

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: Based on 500 simulations centered on the Social Security trustees’ 2004 intermediate demographic assumptions and CBO’s January 2005 economic assumptions.

Revenues include payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits but exclude interest credited to the Social Security trust funds; outlays include scheduled Social Security benefits and administrative costs.

Under current law, outlays begin to exceed revenues starting in 2020; starting in 2053, scheduled benefits cannot be paid.

---

[Andy from Beaverton]

We haven't had a surplus since 1960, so I'm not expecting the government to change now.

[k2blader]

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6064&sequence=0

[garyb]

I seem to have an IDTenT problem (ID10T)
Sorry. Let's try again.

The debt at the end of the last fiscal year was:
7,379,053 million dollars on 9/30/04.

The debt at the end of June, nine months later was:
7,836,496 million dollars.

So, the increase in the public debt was 457,443 million dollars. 457 billion dollars. Still a far cry above the 251 billion dollars which are acknowledged.

June 2005 public debt outstanding:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds062005.htm

September 30, 2004 public debt outstanding:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds092004.htm

(Again, sorry about the first post with the year difference in numbers instead of the nine month difference)

[SierraWasp]

At the risk of killing my own thread... click this!

[thoughtomator]

There is no reason whatsoever to believe the figures. The government's books wouldn't stand up to an audit, and their accounting practices would get anyone else thrown in jail.

[CGTRWK]

Absolutely right. The thieves in DC only look as far ahead as the next election, and anything less than immediate financial catastrophe means they can safely spend more of our money to buy votes.

Solid revenues and a balanced budget for 08, if there were one - there won't be - would mean an election campaign on how to spend it. Hillary will propose 2 trillion dollars of new federal handouts, our man will counter with 1.2 trillion in handouts and a minor tax cut, and whoever wins the mortgaging of our future continues.

Short term politicians and long term responsibility - fiscal or otherwise - are irreconcilable.

[dangus]

Actually, the 2000 surplus was real, larger than the Social Security lending.

[HonestConservative]

If that's true, and I suspect it is, those tax revenue bumps would be short lived until they have had the overall effect of slowing the economy.

Spending is ridiculous and all the Reps are to blame, with few if any exceptions.

[oblomov]

You are counting "intergovernmental holdings", which consist of Soc Sec nonmarketable securities and the like. The debt held by the public has gone up by $220B. The marketable portion of intergovernmental holdings has gone up by about $18B.

[Brilliant]

The budget could easily be balanced in 2006, if they just cut a little pork.

We really need to turn up the heat on the Congress. How about a letter writing campaign to the conservatives?

"Why are you not balancing the budget????"

[Grampa Dave]

"you beat me to that thought. - Massive spending and still down 75 billion. talk about a good economy. Where is all the money coming from?"

Let me beat the professional gloomers and doomers here:

The money is coming from:

1. All the new hamburger flipping jobs versus no jobs.
2. All of the outsourcing which cost jobs here.
3. All of the imports from China which cost jobs here.
4. It's Bush's fault that we are in the worse economy since Hoover.

[SierraWasp]

Don'tchew dare include me with them professional gloomers and doomers Grampa! Include me OUT!!! I posted what I thought was truly good news (which usually doesn't qualify as news even on FR) and as RedOhio came right through pointing out the true reason for all this success, above!!! "REAGANOMICS!!!"

[Andy from Beaverton]

I'm sorry my friend, the federal government has not had one fiscal year in the black since 1960. You can't start taking items like socialist security out of the equation.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

[nc28205]

Just some data points for reference:

Fiscal 2005 YTD Receipts 1,369,366
Fiscal 2001 YTD Receipts 1,378,023

Fiscal 2005 YTD Outlays 1,641,597
Fiscal 2001 YTD Outlays 1,240,939
Source: http://fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html

[SandyB]

This is under the department of figures never lie, but liars always figure. The increase in the public debt between June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2005 is: 562 billion Total Public Debt outstanding: 2005: 7,836,496 million 2004: 7,274,335 million

This is not good, and not conservative.

[nc28205]

>>>If Bush gets us to a budget surplus by 2008, we get to keep the White House for another 4 years.

Not necessarily. It didn't work that way for Al Gore in 2000.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Ain't it amazing. These f..king liberal pukes will never understand what their ROYAL hero JFK knew.

[dangus]

Um, that chart you're looking at shows our public debt, not the deficit. It's the difference between buying your house in cash, and meeting your mortgage payment. The scary thing is that we aren't even meeting our mortgage payments.

[SierraWasp]

I know it! (He says while slapping his knee on his way down, doubling over with laughter) Them dumsumbiches are so busy mumblin the Communist Manefesto to themselves like Muslims with their danged prayer beads and yet they never learned what their great F. King leader tried to teach 'em!!! What a buncha numbnuts!!!