http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BUDGET_DEFICIT?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It's funny you make it sound like they cut spending when in fact they raised taxes.
Thanks Obama. ummmwaaa to the First Lady.
It's funny you make it sound like they cut spending when in fact they raised taxes.
They did both, but it is a fact that Obama is the smallest government president we have had in recent history.
The economy is improving, no thanks to Obama. That increased tax revenue. The only spending cut was the sequester, which, Obama did suggest. Then, the Democrats attempted to blame on the Republicans.
While government employment is down, the cost of those working for the government has increased substantially thru contractors. I suggest www.pogo.org for research into the increased costs.
A good example of increased government cost for services is Eric Snowden. Reportedly, he was paid over $200,000 while employed by the CIA and $150,000 while employed by the NSA as a contractor. Add the markup for the contractor's costs and you have a considerable amount. To claim that government is smaller under Obama is a sign of ignorance of facts, or worse.
It's funny you make it sound like they cut spending when in fact they raised taxes.
They did both, but it is a fact that Obama is the smallest government president we have had in recent history.
__________________________________
Sorry, but you were misinformed. As you may clearly see, government was NOT smaller. Really shouldn't believe Progressive propaganda. Its usually wrong -- embarrassing wrong.
Year | ||
Outlays | ||
2008 | 2,982,544 | |
2009 | 3,517,677 | |
2010 | 3,457,079 | |
2011 | 3,603,059 | |
2012 | 3,537,127 | |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ | ||
Table 1-1 |
A good example of increased government cost for services is Eric Snowden. Reportedly, he was paid over $200,000 while employed by the CIA and $150,000 while employed by the NSA as a contractor. Add the markup for the contractor's costs and you have a considerable amount. To claim that government is smaller under Obama is a sign of ignorance of facts, or worse.
Please, these things are just too easy to find out.
I would have to give credit first to the American voters who have voted for a very divided group of ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. There aren't many middle ground politicians left, so even getting a continuing resolution through both houses of Congress much less an actual budget is nearly impossible. Second, to Obama for the idea of the sequestration. And finally, Harry Reid for keeping the Senate locked down.
A good example of increased government cost for services is Eric Snowden. Reportedly, he was paid over $200,000 while employed by the CIA and $150,000 while employed by the NSA as a contractor. Add the markup for the contractor's costs and you have a considerable amount. To claim that government is smaller under Obama is a sign of ignorance of facts, or worse.
Please, these things are just too easy to find out.
_______________________________
Bad choice, the graph on the left of your source clearly shows spending under Obama out stripping all other presidents since 1952. Really should learn how to read information when quoting from a source that made the same mistake. The other presidents built the Interstate highway system and coped with the cold war with less. Obama's just given more spending.
Should it also be taken into account we are collecting revenue for Obamacare and not spending it yet?
The other graph shows a percentage of increase from the base, not as a percentage of the whole GDP. As I've said many times there are three types of lies -- lies, dammed lies and cooked statistics.
government spending has plummeted during obama's administration. you'll never get the conservatives to admit that. they're blinded by their sheer hatred for obama.
a prime example of "we can't see the forest for the trees."
Truly, an example of drinking Obama's bath water. Show the actual increase in spending from White House source -- Office of Management and Budget, to be exact, and they still deny reality.
dire, for an accountant, you sure don't exhibit much intelligence in the way of "budgets".. .exactly how much of the US budget is from "prior commitments" from say.. Ws administration? how much spending has been cut under obama? your reading comprehension seems to still be an issue. those classes will really help.
One more time:
Obviously, spending and deficits did not decrease. Progressive accounting aka creative accounting will, if used with the IRS or real world scenarios, result in prison time and bankruptcy.
Fiscal Year | In Current 2005 Dollars | ||
Receipts | Outlays | Surplus or Deficit (&ndash | |
2001 | $ 1,991.1 | $ 1,862.8 | $ 128.2 |
2002 | $ 1,853.1 | $ 2,010.9 | $ (157.8) |
2003 | $ 1,782.3 | $ 2,159.9 | $ (377.6) |
2004 | $ 1,880.1 | $ 2,292.8 | $ (412.7) |
2005 | $ 2,153.6 | $ 2,472.0 | $ (318.3) |
2006 | $ 2,406.9 | $ 2,655.0 | $ (248.2) |
2007 | $ 2,568.0 | $ 2,728.7 | $ (160.7) |
2008 | $ 2,524.0 | $ 2,982.5 | $ (458.6) |
TOTAL | $ 15,168.0 | $ 17,301.8 | $ (2,133.9) |
2009 | $ 2,105.0 | $ 3,517.7 | $ (1,412.7) |
2010 | $ 2,162.7 | $ 3,456.2 | $ (1,293.5) |
2011 | $ 2,303.5 | $ 3,603.1 | $ (1,299.6) |
2012 | $ 2,450.1 | $ 3,537.1 | $ (1,086.9) |
TOTAL | $ 9,021.3 | $ 14,114.1 | $ (5,092.7) |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
|
Some people are emotionally vested with Obama and can't see past that.
Thanks Obama. ummmwaaa to the First Lady.
Now that's funny!
As! I know exactly where your lips would plant that kiss...
Thanks Obama. ummmwaaa to the First Lady.
Now that's funny!
As! I know exactly where your lips would plant that kiss...
--------
OK,,,,thanks Roland, it's going to take extra Old #7 to clear that picture
out of my mind.
Again, another example of cooked statistics.
National debt at 2008 -- $9.986 Trillion
As of now -- $17.8 trillion. In less than 5 years, he's increased the debt by 176 percent. Giving a progressive access to math is akin to giving an infant a live grenade with the safety clip removed and the pin nearly out.
Probably the biggest way the statistics was cooked is because the 2009 budget was inflated with emergency spending and that spending rate became the new norm instead of falling back to pre- recession levels. The only reason that the rate of spending hasn't increased further is because the voters don't believe in either party and voted for divided government. As for the chart not attributed to its author by the purple one:
"As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”
Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”
Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.
It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.
Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:
The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?"
Al that rambling dissent and yet it is clear that the deficit is getting smaller, which is all I said.
Yes, but only by increasing revenue and decreasing fund required for recovery.
Man spends like a teenage girl with daddy's credit card.
Year | In millions | |
Receipts | Outlays | |
2008 | $2,523,991 | $2,982,544 |
2009 | $2,104,989 | $3,517,677 |
2010 | $2,162,706 | $3,457,079 |
2011 | $2,303,466 | $3,603,059 |
2012 | $2,450,164 | $3,537,127 |
2013 estimate | $2,712,045 | $3,684,947 |
Truth of the matter is ignored by whiney conservatives.
"While more work remains to be done, the U.S. economy has made significant progress in recovering from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. When the President took office in 2009, the private sector was losing over 800,000 jobs a month, credit markets that provide capital for investment had seized up, and businesses—small and large—were struggling. The housing market was in free fall and our auto industry was near collapse." http://www.whitehouse.gov/site...014/assets/14msr.pdf
Through the determination and resiliency of the American people and the decisive actions of the President working with Congress to bolster job growth and jumpstart economic activity, we successfully broke the back of the recession and pulled the Nation back from the brink.
The economy has been recovering ever since. We have seen positive economic growth for 15 consecutive quarters. Through June, the private sector has added jobs every month for 40 straight months, with a total of 7.2 million jobs added over that period. This year alone, more than 1.2 million private sector jobs have been added so far. The unemployment rate has fallen from a high of 10 percent in 2009 to 7.6 percent as of June. Manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs over the past three years. And the housing market and the auto industry continue to show signs of recovery.
MID-SESSION REVIEW Figures in RED are for dire since he has trouble reading charts
4
Table 1. CHANGES IN DEFICITS FROM THE 2014 BUDGET (In billions of dollars)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013
| 2014
| 2015
| 2016
| 2017
| 2018
| 2019
| 2020
| 2021
| 2022
| 2023
| 2014- 2018
| 2014- 2023
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 Budget deficit
| 973
| 744
| 576
| 528
| 487
| 475
| 498
| 503
| 501
| 519
| 439
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percent of GDP
| 6.0%
| 4.4%
| 3.2%
| 2.8%
| 2.4%
| 2.3%
| 2.3%
| 2.2%
| 2.1%
| 2.1%
| 1.7%
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Enacted legislation:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013
| 5
| –8
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| –8
| –7
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Debt service
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –1
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, enacted legislation
| 5
| –8
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| –*
| *
| *
| *
| –*
| –8
| –8
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Economic and technical reestimates:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Receipts
| –65
| 11
| 47
| 46
| 27
| 15
| 30
| 58
| 40
| 42
| 69
| 146
| 384
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Outlays:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discretionary programs
| –43
| 1
| 3
| 6
| 3
| 3
| 2
| 2
| 2
| 1
| 1
| 14
| 21
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mandatory:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Medicaid
| 8
| 8
| 11
| 11
| 11
| 12
| 13
| 13
| 14
| 14
| 15
| 54
| 123
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Social Security
| –3
| –9
| –12
| –12
| –11
| –10
| –8
| –7
| –6
| –5
| –4
| –54
| –85
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
| 2
| 6
| 7
| 6
| 7
| 6
| 6
| 6
| 6
| 7
| 8
| 32
| 65
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Premium assistance tax credits
| .........
| 1
| –5
| –7
| –3
| –2
| –3
| –4
| –5
| –7
| –8
| –16
| –43
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Proceeds from GSE Preferred Stock
| –71
| 3
| 5
| 6
| 4
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 20
| 34
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Earned Income Tax Credit
| 2
| 3
| 3
| 2
| 2
| 2
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 12
| 32
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Medicare
| –2
| *
| 1
| 1
| –2
| *
| 2
| 4
| 5
| 8
| 10
| 1
| 31
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Unemployment compensation
| –6
| –5
| –3
| –3
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –15
| –19
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Supplemental Security Income program
| –*
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –6
| –15
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Federal retirement
| *
| –*
| –1
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –7
| –14
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Child Tax Credit
| –1
| –3
| –3
| –3
| –3
| –3
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| –16
| –11
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Troubled Asset Relief Program
| –7
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| .........
| .........
| .........
| 5
| 7
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Deposit Insurance Fund
| –6
| *
| 1
| *
| –*
| –*
| 1
| 2
| *
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 5
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
| –18
| –1
| –4
| –4
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –*
| –*
| –1
| –1
| –13
| –16
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total mandatory
| –104
| 3
| –*
| –3
| –2
| 2
| 14
| 17
| 17
| 21
| 25
| *
| 93
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest 1 | –7
| –*
| –*
| 2
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 4
| 7
| 11
| 15
| 3
| 41
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, outlays 2 | –154
| 3
| 2
| 4
| 2
| 6
| 17
| 23
| 26
| 33
| 41
| 17
| 156
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, economic and technical reestimates
| –219
| 14
| 49
| 50
| 29
| 21
| 47
| 81
| 65
| 74
| 109
| 163
| 540
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total, changes
| –214
| 6
| 49
| 50
| 29
| 21
| 47
| 81
| 65
| 74
| 109
| 155
| 532
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mid-Session Review deficit
| 759
| 750
| 626
| 578
| 516
| 496
| 545
| 584
| 566
| 593
| 549
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percent of GDP
| 4.7%
| 4.5%
| 3.5%
| 3.1%
| 2.6%
| 2.4%
| 2.5%
| 2.6%
| 2.4%
| 2.4%
| 2.1%
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note:
|
MID-SESSION REVIEW
MID-SESSION REVIEW
4
Table 1. CHANGES IN DEFICITS FROM THE 2014 BUDGET (In billions of dollars)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013
| 2014
| 2015
| 2016
| 2017
| 2018
| 2019
| 2020
| 2021
| 2022
| 2023
| 2014- 2018
| 2014- 2023
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 Budget deficit
| 973
| 744
| 576
| 528
| 487
| 475
| 498
| 503
| 501
| 519
| 439
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percent of GDP
| 6.0%
| 4.4%
| 3.2%
| 2.8%
| 2.4%
| 2.3%
| 2.3%
| 2.2%
| 2.1%
| 2.1%
| 1.7%
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Enacted legislation:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013
| 5
| –8
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| –8
| –7
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Debt service
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –1
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, enacted legislation
| 5
| –8
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| –*
| *
| *
| *
| –*
| –8
| –8
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Economic and technical reestimates:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Receipts
| –65
| 11
| 47
| 46
| 27
| 15
| 30
| 58
| 40
| 42
| 69
| 146
| 384
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Outlays:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discretionary programs
| –43
| 1
| 3
| 6
| 3
| 3
| 2
| 2
| 2
| 1
| 1
| 14
| 21
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mandatory:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Medicaid
| 8
| 8
| 11
| 11
| 11
| 12
| 13
| 13
| 14
| 14
| 15
| 54
| 123
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Social Security
| –3
| –9
| –12
| –12
| –11
| –10
| –8
| –7
| –6
| –5
| –4
| –54
| –85
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
| 2
| 6
| 7
| 6
| 7
| 6
| 6
| 6
| 6
| 7
| 8
| 32
| 65
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Premium assistance tax credits
| .........
| 1
| –5
| –7
| –3
| –2
| –3
| –4
| –5
| –7
| –8
| –16
| –43
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Proceeds from GSE Preferred Stock
| –71
| 3
| 5
| 6
| 4
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 20
| 34
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Earned Income Tax Credit
| 2
| 3
| 3
| 2
| 2
| 2
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 12
| 32
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Medicare
| –2
| *
| 1
| 1
| –2
| *
| 2
| 4
| 5
| 8
| 10
| 1
| 31
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Unemployment compensation
| –6
| –5
| –3
| –3
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –15
| –19
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Supplemental Security Income program
| –*
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –6
| –15
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Federal retirement
| *
| –*
| –1
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –7
| –14
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Child Tax Credit
| –1
| –3
| –3
| –3
| –3
| –3
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| –16
| –11
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Troubled Asset Relief Program
| –7
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| .........
| .........
| .........
| 5
| 7
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Deposit Insurance Fund
| –6
| *
| 1
| *
| –*
| –*
| 1
| 2
| *
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 5
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
| –18
| –1
| –4
| –4
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –*
| –*
| –1
| –1
| –13
| –16
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total mandatory
| –104
| 3
| –*
| –3
| –2
| 2
| 14
| 17
| 17
| 21
| 25
| *
| 93
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest 1 | –7
| –*
| –*
| 2
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 4
| 7
| 11
| 15
| 3
| 41
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, outlays 2 | –154
| 3
| 2
| 4
| 2
| 6
| 17
| 23
| 26
| 33
| 41
| 17
| 156
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, economic and technical reestimates
| –219
| 14
| 49
| 50
| 29
| 21
| 47
| 81
| 65
| 74
| 109
| 163
| 540
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total, changes
| –214
| 6
| 49
| 50
| 29
| 21
| 47
| 81
| 65
| 74
| 109
| 155
| 532
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mid-Session Review deficit
| 759
| 750
| 626
| 578
| 516
| 496
| 545
| 584
| 566
| 593
| 549
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percent of GDP
| 4.7%
| 4.5%
| 3.5%
| 3.1%
| 2.6%
| 2.4%
| 2.5%
| 2.6%
| 2.4%
| 2.4%
| 2.1%
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note:
|
4
Table 1. CHANGES IN DEFICITS FROM THE 2014 BUDGET (In billions of dollars)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013
| 2014
| 2015
| 2016
| 2017
| 2018
| 2019
| 2020
| 2021
| 2022
| 2023
| 2014- 2018
| 2014- 2023
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 Budget deficit
| 973
| 744
| 576
| 528
| 487
| 475
| 498
| 503
| 501
| 519
| 439
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percent of GDP
| 6.0%
| 4.4%
| 3.2%
| 2.8%
| 2.4%
| 2.3%
| 2.3%
| 2.2%
| 2.1%
| 2.1%
| 1.7%
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Enacted legislation:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013
| 5
| –8
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| –8
| –7
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Debt service
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –*
| –1
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, enacted legislation
| 5
| –8
| *
| *
| –*
| –*
| –*
| *
| *
| *
| –*
| –8
| –8
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Economic and technical reestimates:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Receipts
| –65
| 11
| 47
| 46
| 27
| 15
| 30
| 58
| 40
| 42
| 69
| 146
| 384
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Outlays:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discretionary programs
| –43
| 1
| 3
| 6
| 3
| 3
| 2
| 2
| 2
| 1
| 1
| 14
| 21
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mandatory:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Medicaid
| 8
| 8
| 11
| 11
| 11
| 12
| 13
| 13
| 14
| 14
| 15
| 54
| 123
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Social Security
| –3
| –9
| –12
| –12
| –11
| –10
| –8
| –7
| –6
| –5
| –4
| –54
| –85
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
| 2
| 6
| 7
| 6
| 7
| 6
| 6
| 6
| 6
| 7
| 8
| 32
| 65
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Premium assistance tax credits
| .........
| 1
| –5
| –7
| –3
| –2
| –3
| –4
| –5
| –7
| –8
| –16
| –43
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Proceeds from GSE Preferred Stock
| –71
| 3
| 5
| 6
| 4
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 3
| 20
| 34
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Earned Income Tax Credit
| 2
| 3
| 3
| 2
| 2
| 2
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 4
| 12
| 32
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Medicare
| –2
| *
| 1
| 1
| –2
| *
| 2
| 4
| 5
| 8
| 10
| 1
| 31
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Unemployment compensation
| –6
| –5
| –3
| –3
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –15
| –19
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Supplemental Security Income program
| –*
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –1
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –6
| –15
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Federal retirement
| *
| –*
| –1
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –7
| –14
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Child Tax Credit
| –1
| –3
| –3
| –3
| –3
| –3
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| –16
| –11
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Troubled Asset Relief Program
| –7
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 1
| .........
| .........
| .........
| 5
| 7
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Deposit Insurance Fund
| –6
| *
| 1
| *
| –*
| –*
| 1
| 2
| *
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 5
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
| –18
| –1
| –4
| –4
| –2
| –2
| –1
| –*
| –*
| –1
| –1
| –13
| –16
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total mandatory
| –104
| 3
| –*
| –3
| –2
| 2
| 14
| 17
| 17
| 21
| 25
| *
| 93
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest 1 | –7
| –*
| –*
| 2
| 1
| 1
| 1
| 4
| 7
| 11
| 15
| 3
| 41
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, outlays 2 | –154
| 3
| 2
| 4
| 2
| 6
| 17
| 23
| 26
| 33
| 41
| 17
| 156
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal, economic and technical reestimates
| –219
| 14
| 49
| 50
| 29
| 21
| 47
| 81
| 65
| 74
| 109
| 163
| 540
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total, changes
| –214
| 6
| 49
| 50
| 29
| 21
| 47
| 81
| 65
| 74
| 109
| 155
| 532
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mid-Session Review deficit
| 759
| 750
| 626
| 578
| 516
| 496
| 545
| 584
| 566
| 593
| 549
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percent of GDP
| 4.7%
| 4.5%
| 3.5%
| 3.1%
| 2.6%
| 2.4%
| 2.5%
| 2.6%
| 2.4%
| 2.4%
| 2.1%
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note:
|
The figures in RED I highlighted for dire since he doesn't understand charts.
For those, like QD, who are unable to fully comprehend data, scan to the right of FY 13. It progressively (pun intended) gets much worse. Only short term decrease in bad news.
For those, like QD, who are unable to fully comprehend data, scan to the right of FY 13. It progressively (pun intended) gets much worse. Only short term decrease in bad news.
For those, like QD, who are unable to fully comprehend data, scan to the right of FY 13. It progressively (pun intended) gets much worse. Only short term decrease in bad news.
Why dire m'boy deficit percent of GDP is going rapidly to 0.
Al that rambling dissent and yet it is clear that the deficit is getting smaller, which is all I said.
Who's "AL" ?
Loose the "Spelling for Dummies"...again?
You're slipping...
No proof from QD, of course. OMB predicts short term decline; then rapid increase.
Dire I’m beginning to wonder if you were ever anything other than a ‘book keeper’ in an Ace Hardware store somewhere in the outskirts of Rome Ga.
BTW UMMMWAAA!! to the first lady. She's a sweetheart.
"By JONATHAN WEISMAN
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit will fall to $759 billion for the fiscal year that ends this September, a $214 billion improvement from the projection made in March, as spending cuts, tax increases and an improving economy begin to tame the government’s red ink, the White House budget office said on Monday.
The annual midsession review from the White House Office of Management and Budget was largely in line with a recent forecast from the Congressional Budget Office. Both see a rapid decline in deficits expressed as a percentage of the economy, the fastest since the years following World War II, according to Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the White House budget director. The White House said this year’s deficit would reach 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product, down from more than 10 percent four years ago, and would continue to slide to 3 percent of the economy by 2017.
But absent structural changes to Medicare and Social Security, the forecast makes clear that such short-run improvements may not last. The White House projected the deficit to bottom out at $496 billion in 2018, then start ticking back up to $593 billion in 2022.
Over the course of the next decade, the White House said nearly $6.6 trillion will be added to the federal debt, with President Obama’s policies in place. That is slightly higher than the $6.3 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office said current policies without additional changes would add to the debt through 2023. The office’s forecast assumes the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration will remain in force, while the president’s figures assume they will not."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...deficit-will-shrink/
Not exactly zero, is it!
Dire I’m beginning to wonder if you were ever anything other than a ‘book keeper’ in an Ace Hardware store somewhere in the outskirts of Rome Ga.
BTW UMMMWAAA!! to the first lady. She's a sweetheart.
Wonder?
That would be YOU ...trying to put a sentence together.
CALL Beturnu...
Ya'll would make a Family???
[1]" Now we have a party in control of the House that would rather break things than move things along. The budget process is relatively simple (though the in-fighting is brutal), so that means the only reason the US has not had a legal budget since before Obama took office is because the Republican Party is too fractured and scared of its own shadow to be anything except a roadblock to any kind of progress".
[2]Jeff Sessions is your only source for information regarding to economy? Why he is shutting the paper mill down in Courtland as thanks for voting him into office. NASA will be next. Just watch. Our state senators would be well advised to monitor the heartbeat of business in Alabama before they suddenly close their doors. Not after.
============================================
[1] comment from ccwriter after nytimes post by dire http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...it-will-shrink/?_r=0
The sad part is that the recovery is at about 1.5 to 2 percent. If, we had a Reagan style recovery of 5 to 7 percent most of the troubles would be solved.
The sad part is that the recovery is at about 1.5 to 2 percent. If, we had a Reagan style recovery of 5 to 7 percent most of the troubles would be solved.
_______________________
bahahahaha! reagan "spent" us out of a recession. the 'deficit hawk" teapublicans would NEVER allow that , now! time for you to join reality!
The sad part is that the recovery is at about 1.5 to 2 percent. If, we had a Reagan style recovery of 5 to 7 percent most of the troubles would be solved.
_______________________
bahahahaha! reagan "spent" us out of a recession. the 'deficit hawk" teapublicans would NEVER allow that , now! time for you to join reality!
____________________________________
No, the jobs generated were not government and, even most, not due to military build up. Time for you to realize the failures of Progressivism.
Thanks again Obama.