Good news. For the first time in Hussein Obamas tenure, the deficit is under a trillion dollars. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/188734-deficit-was-680-billion-in-2013 quote: The federal budget deficit for fiscal 2013 was $680 billion... The bad news is that the deficit reduction came not as a reduction in federal spending but by squeezing more tax money out of outnumbered taxpayers. quote: Most of the change comes from higher tax receipts. Receipts rose to $2.77 trillion in 2013, up from $2.45 trillion in 2012. But no matter how you slice it, Hussein Obama is the undisputed king of deficits, presiding over five of the six highest deficits of all time. Only FDR in 1943 joined him. At least FDR had a valid reason. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...presided-over-5-6-largest-deficits-us-history quote: In fiscal 2013, which ended Sept. 30, the deficit was $680.276 billion, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released Wednesday. In fiscal 2012, the deficit was $1.089193 trillion; in fiscal 2011, it was $1.296791 trillion; in fiscal 2010, it was $1.294204 trillion; and, in fiscal 2009, it was $1.415724 trillion. In fiscal 2008, the last full year that George W. Bush was president, the deficit was $454.798 billion. Taxcutter says: We can see that Hussein Obamas lowest deficit was almost 50% higher than GW Bushs biggest deficit. On average, Hussein Obamas years showed a $1.115 trillion annual deficit. On average, GW Bushs years showed a $0.220 trillion annual deficit. On average, World War IIs six fiscal years showed a $0.424 trillion (2013 dollars) annual deficit. Improbably Hussein Obama has turned out to be a bigger spender than FDR during the biggest war in history by a two and half to one margin. And he has run deficits on average five times what GW Bush ran. Hussein Obama has not been alone in his prolifigacy. In the last year that the GOP controlled both houses of Congress (FY2006) the deficit ran $0.248 trillion. By comparison the two years that Nasty Nancy was Speaker, Dirty Harry was Senate Majority Leader and Hussein Obama was President (FY2009 and FY2010) the deficits averaged $1.345 trillion over five times what it was in GW Bushs last year of having a friendly Congress. ObamaTax threatens to drive deficits back up yet again.
The projected deficit for FY 2009 as of January 2009, a month before Obama took office, was $1.2 trillion. That's what he inherited. It's now roughly half of that. He promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. It took just a little longer.
I didn't agree with the tax increases, but then again I'm not a deficit scold either. Also, too, cutting deficits by cutting spending depresses the economy.
"...cutting deficits by cutting spending depresses the economy." Taxcutter says: Only if too much of the economy is eaten up by government spending. Viz: France, Greece.
That only shows that to much of the private sector is tied to the federal budget. That's not a good thing in itself. Paying nearly half a billion for a website that could have been done for about 1/1000th of the cost isn't practical and a waist of taxpayer money. It's not a stimulus, in any fashion.
Jesus. I'm new here. Let me guess, you're one of those types that claims to subscribe to the theories of the Austrian school of economics. - - - Updated - - - No, it doesn't really show that. It shows that when you reduce demand from an economy, the economy will shrink. Now, of course, there are times when this ins't the case, but when you have a large output gap, idle resources and low private sector invetment like we have now, cutting government spending reduces economic growth.
It's funny you mention this. Many will use FDR's administration in pushing mass amounts of dollars into the market spurred rapid growth and a Keynesian success, however, the thing that made our economy relish during that era was not Keynesian economics, but the loss of the manufacturing complex of most of Europe and Asia. We benefited from the war because each side destroyed each others manufacturing base, leaving the only true exporter as the US. This created immense growth in our economy, not FDR's flooding US dollars into the military industrial complex, but merely that unemployment was eliminated due to 20% of the workforce was shipped over seas and Europe and Asia had no choice to purchase material and goods from the US after the war ended. This recession, however, is a perfect example of how Keynesian Economics does not work. We are still at high levels of unemployment and we are still hedging inflation with reduced interest rate. If Key's was right, then our economy would be in much better shape than we are currently seeding today. We are still at a meager 2.5% (this last quarter) with the opening quarter at a laggard .1% (<1).
Gee, I wonder why Obama's averages on the deficits were higher than Bush's? Could it be because Bush inherited a surplus budget and Obama inherited deficits running over a trillion dollars, soon projected to hit $1.9 trillion, as well as the worst recession in 80 years? If you wanted to make the comparison fairly, that is. More here: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=329914 - - - Updated - - - I don't recall them forcing Obama to raise tax revenues, which increased by $320 billion over last year. In fact, I recall them fighting the tax raise every step of the way, and nominating for president someone who threatened to slash taxes (mostly for multi-millionaires like himself) far more.
RW propaganda fable pushed by the 1% to justify tax cuts for themselves because taking 20% of the nation's income and controlling 40% of the nation's wealth is not enough.
Straight from the hand book of Keynes I see. When the federal government is providing the demand, then yes, the private sector is tied to our governments spending. And when our government is paying 10, 20 to 100x's the amount of for goods and service, they create an economic dichotomy which to your point, will reduce the economy with reduced spending of the federal government. The private sector, however, shouldn't rely on our government to spend money.
What failure of the stimulus? - - - Updated - - - I think he's one of those types that will claim just about anything to support cutting taxes for the 1%.
We had strong growth from 1934 on, except for 1938 after the Govt cut spending because of concern over the deficit. year - % Real GDP 1930 -8.51% 1931 -6.39% 1932 -12.90% 1933 -1.26% 1934 10.78% 1935 8.92% 1936 12.94% 1937 5.10% 1938 -3.31% 1939 7.98% 1940 8.81% Source: BEA.gov.
Because anyone with economic sense knows that the 1% will NOT pay the increase but merely pass this onto the consumer. The price of goods and service go up as a result of this pass through which force people to purchase less goods and services.
No. The stimulus wasn't large enough. Our austerity measures have cost us a lot of jobs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/austerity-us-economy_n_3397586.html
How is a billionaire trust fund baby's living off the investment income from daddy's trust going to pass the cost onto the consumer. Just asking since you apparently hold yourself out with economic sense. But if what you say is true, then why make a fuss about it? We'll increase the top income tax rate on incomes over $1m to 50%, eliminate the SS exemptions for high income and investment income, and make investment income taxed at the same rate earned income is taxed. Since the 1% can merely pass it on, they should have no objection to it, right?
So what is the answer when the private sector isn't spending the money, whether because millions have lost their jobs, or because of fear and panic of losing one's job, or the fact that their equity in their home was wiped out or worse, or because 10% of the nation's gross income has been redistributed to the 1%, who put it in offshore bank accounts instead of spending it?
If our government really wanted to do something about the deficit and the national debt they would focus on tax reform and start closing the corporate loop holes that allows them to pay low or no taxes. But this won't happen because candidates from both parties benefit from campaign monies from corporations. Both parties have effectively divided the people to their benefit. While we fight each other, they collect their large corporate donations in return for ignoring the real problem plaguing this country's financial disparities. Unless we the people force our government to close those loop holes, the people in this country who really need monetary assistance won't see it because our representatives are spending it on themselves.
