U.S. Budget Deficit Ends Year at Lowest Level Since 2007

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

boards of FL wrote:Yes, because Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit.  How many times must this be explained to you?  It doesn't matter who entered the white house in 2009; debt was necessarily going to skyrocket because we 1) cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) implemented a medicare prescription drug plan and then 4) the Great Recession came along.  These increases in spending, decreases in tax rates, and shitty economy all combined to produce the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit that Obama inherited.  Being it the case that debt is a function of annual deficits, of course debt increased.  It's not as if any politician can erase a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit overnight without there being dire economic consequences.  And it's amazing that this need be explained to anyone who graduated high school, which leads me to question your academic background.

boards of FL wrote:And there is no need to take my word for this.  Just watch.

knothead wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-ends-year-at-lowest-level-since-2007-1452711602

The U.S. budget deficit ended last year at its lowest level since 2007, marking the sixth straight annual drop. But the declines may not last without a pickup in economic growth.

Bob wrote:

knothead wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-ends-year-at-lowest-level-since-2007-1452711602

The U.S. budget deficit ended last year at its lowest level since 2007, marking the sixth straight annual drop. But the declines may not last without a pickup in economic growth.

I can't read the article without subscribing.  But the lead up to the article says "But the declines may not last without a pickup in economic growth."

We're borrowing $400 billion every year.  But declining economic growth would make that turn around.  And to who knows what figure.
And that decline in economic growth is becoming a very scary reality.  Worldwide.

Bob wrote:

knothead wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-ends-year-at-lowest-level-since-2007-1452711602

The U.S. budget deficit ended last year at its lowest level since 2007, marking the sixth straight annual drop. But the declines may not last without a pickup in economic growth.

I can't read the article without subscribing.  But the lead up to the article says "But the declines may not last without a pickup in economic growth."

We're borrowing $400 billion every year.  But declining economic growth would make that turn around.  And to who knows what figure.
And that decline in economic growth is becoming a very scary reality.  Worldwide.

Markle wrote:What fun!

Budget...paper figure semi-retired President Obama raised to $1.3 TRILLION and then takes credit to lowering it to the level of the Bush Administration.

WOW, I'm impressed!

Meanwhile...the DEBT, REAL DOLLARS has increased from $10.6 TRILLION to $18.9 TRILLION!

Progressives are like the shyster tire dealer.  They raise the price of their $100.00 tire to $200.00.  A month later they have a huge HALF OFF SALE and sell the tires for $100.00 again.

Nuff said!

boards of FL wrote:Yes, because Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit.  How many times must this be explained to you?  It doesn't matter who entered the white house in 2009; debt was necessarily going to skyrocket because we 1) cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) implemented a medicare prescription drug plan and then 4) the Great Recession came along.  These increases in spending, decreases in tax rates, and shitty economy all combined to produce the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit that Obama inherited.  Being it the case that debt is a function of annual deficits, of course debt increased.  It's not as if any politician can erase a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit overnight without there being dire economic consequences.  And it's amazing that this need be explained to anyone who graduated high school, which leads me to question your academic background.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

My response to your same complaint yesterday.  

Everyone note how republicans...err....high school libertarians aren't capable of engaging.  They're only capable of repeating things they have been told and then running off to the next thread where they can continue that process.

And there is no need to take my word for this.  Just watch.  

boards of FL wrote:Yes, because Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit.  How many times must this be explained to you?  It doesn't matter who entered the white house in 2009; debt was necessarily going to skyrocket because we 1) cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) implemented a medicare prescription drug plan and then 4) the Great Recession came along.  These increases in spending, decreases in tax rates, and shitty economy all combined to produce the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit that Obama inherited.  Being it the case that debt is a function of annual deficits, of course debt increased.  It's not as if any politician can erase a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit overnight without there being dire economic consequences.  And it's amazing that this need be explained to anyone who graduated high school, which leads me to question your academic background.

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

But you lack the capacity to acknowledge that this reduction in our deficit is at a minimum progress? Stunning . . . . a thousand mile journey begins with a single step!

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

But you lack the capacity to acknowledge that this reduction in our deficit is at a minimum progress? Stunning . . . . a thousand mile journey begins with a single step!

Yes, STUNNING.  However in this case, the thousand mile journey ($18.9 TRILLION) is still flying backwards at a rate Progressives called outrageous and irresponsible when announced by former President Bush.

Is that true or false?

Markle wrote:What fun!

Budget...paper figure semi-retired President Obama raised to $1.3 TRILLION and then takes credit to lowering it to the level of the Bush Administration.

WOW, I'm impressed!

Meanwhile...the DEBT, REAL DOLLARS has increased from $10.6 TRILLION to $18.9 TRILLION!

Progressives are like the shyster tire dealer.  They raise the price of their $100.00 tire to $200.00.  A month later they have a huge HALF OFF SALE and sell the tires for $100.00 again.

Nuff said!

knothead wrote:

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

But you lack the capacity to acknowledge that this reduction in our deficit is at a minimum progress? Stunning . . . . a thousand mile journey begins with a single step!

Yes, STUNNING.  However in this case, the thousand mile journey ($18.9 TRILLION) is still flying backwards at a rate Progressives called outrageous and irresponsible when announced by former President Bush.

Is that true or false?

So you do acknowledge that it is, in fact, progress? That is the question.

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

My response to your same complaint yesterday.  

Everyone note how republicans...err....high school libertarians aren't capable of engaging.  They're only capable of repeating things they have been told and then running off to the next thread where they can continue that process.

And there is no need to take my word for this.  Just watch.  

boards of FL wrote:Yes, because Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit.  How many times must this be explained to you?  It doesn't matter who entered the white house in 2009; debt was necessarily going to skyrocket because we 1) cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) implemented a medicare prescription drug plan and then 4) the Great Recession came along.  These increases in spending, decreases in tax rates, and shitty economy all combined to produce the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit that Obama inherited.  Being it the case that debt is a function of annual deficits, of course debt increased.  It's not as if any politician can erase a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit overnight without there being dire economic consequences.  And it's amazing that this need be explained to anyone who graduated high school, which leads me to question your academic background.

Actually, it does matter who was elected to the presidency.  Someone who was intent on fiscal responsibility could have endeavored, cajoling the Congress, to reduce the size of the DEBT.  Yes, it would take some doing, and yes, it would cause some pain.  But do not think that it was INEVITABLE that the DEBT would increase to the size it is now.

boards of FL wrote:

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

My response to your same complaint yesterday.  

Everyone note how republicans...err....high school libertarians aren't capable of engaging.  They're only capable of repeating things they have been told and then running off to the next thread where they can continue that process.

And there is no need to take my word for this.  Just watch.  

boards of FL wrote:Yes, because Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit.  How many times must this be explained to you?  It doesn't matter who entered the white house in 2009; debt was necessarily going to skyrocket because we 1) cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) implemented a medicare prescription drug plan and then 4) the Great Recession came along.  These increases in spending, decreases in tax rates, and shitty economy all combined to produce the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit that Obama inherited.  Being it the case that debt is a function of annual deficits, of course debt increased.  It's not as if any politician can erase a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit overnight without there being dire economic consequences.  And it's amazing that this need be explained to anyone who graduated high school, which leads me to question your academic background.

Actually, it does matter who was elected to the presidency.  Someone who was intent on fiscal responsibility could have endeavored, cajoling the Congress, to reduce the size of the DEBT.  Yes, it would take some doing, and yes, it would cause some pain.  But do not think that it was INEVITABLE that the DEBT would increase to the size it is now.

So I have to ask, when you say "reduce the size of DEBT", how do you propose doing that?  I ask, because in my mind, that would involve steady reductions in the deficit until we eventually reach a surplus.  Once we have a government structured to yield a budget surplus, we will then begin to reduce our debt.

So that is my interpretation of how to reduce debt.  Clearly, yours differs from that.  Can you explain yours?

colaguy wrote:



I like to look at it as a household would...    

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

colaguy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The debt was 10.5 TRILLION when obama took office... and will likely be 20 TRILLION by the time he leaves office.

A STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

My response to your same complaint yesterday.  

Everyone note how republicans...err....high school libertarians aren't capable of engaging.  They're only capable of repeating things they have been told and then running off to the next thread where they can continue that process.

And there is no need to take my word for this.  Just watch.  

boards of FL wrote:Yes, because Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit.  How many times must this be explained to you?  It doesn't matter who entered the white house in 2009; debt was necessarily going to skyrocket because we 1) cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) implemented a medicare prescription drug plan and then 4) the Great Recession came along.  These increases in spending, decreases in tax rates, and shitty economy all combined to produce the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit that Obama inherited.  Being it the case that debt is a function of annual deficits, of course debt increased.  It's not as if any politician can erase a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit overnight without there being dire economic consequences.  And it's amazing that this need be explained to anyone who graduated high school, which leads me to question your academic background.

Actually, it does matter who was elected to the presidency.  Someone who was intent on fiscal responsibility could have endeavored, cajoling the Congress, to reduce the size of the DEBT.  Yes, it would take some doing, and yes, it would cause some pain.  But do not think that it was INEVITABLE that the DEBT would increase to the size it is now.

So I have to ask, when you say "reduce the size of DEBT", how do you propose doing that?  I ask, because in my mind, that would involve steady reductions in the deficit until we eventually reach a surplus.  Once we have a government structured to yield a budget surplus, we will then begin to reduce our debt.

So that is my interpretation of how to reduce debt.  Clearly, yours differs from that.  Can you explain yours?

Our interpretations are not that different.
The deficit occurs only annually, the debt is the nation's "running tally".

If, in any given fiscal year, we set a budget and keep to that budget - meaning we didn't spend more than we took in - then there is no deficit for that year.  That, however, does nothing to reduce the accumulated debt.  In order to reduce the debt, we (Congress) have to intentionally budget less.  That means, for example, if we have revenues of $2T, the approved budget might be set at, say, $1.5T.  The difference in what spend vs what we take in, can be "applied" to the debt.  In this example a $500B reduction.

I like to look at it as a household would. We earn (take in) $100K per year. If, in that year, we spend $105K, by using our Visa, we end the year with a deficit of $5K. The next year we earn $100K.  Since we still owe Visa that $5K we need to spend only $95K, so that the remaining $5K can be paid to Visa. At the end of the 2nd year we have no deficit and no debt.  Very simplified - but it can work similarly with the massive National Debt too.