PF Exclusive: Debt increase in FY2015 lowest in 14 years

The tech boom stock bubble really went hot in 1998-2000, not un-coincidentally after they cut cap gains taxes by about 30%, IMO.

Funny how Republicans like austerity only when a Democrat is in office, isn't it?

But the biggest reason for the deficit coming down was the tax increase in 2013, according to this source:

There are three main reasons for that: the slowly-improving economy is putting more people back to work, which means fewer safety net payments and more tax revenue; defense spending cuts; and the tax hikes from January 1 2013 have gone into effect.

Indeed, it's not the spending side of the ledger that has shrank the budget deficit, but the tax side.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/keving...icit-shrinks-due-to-more-tax-revenue-n1590424

 

Tax revenues would grow without tax hikes, due to more people working. What we really need is less spending. We can't keep spending what we don't have and squeezing tax payers is not the answer. We need a streamlined tax system with no loopholes for income, corporate and capital gains and I actually am in the minority as a Republican who thinks the capital gains taxes should be the same as income taxes

 

Well you could put it that way, but you'd be wrong.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

The deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, soon projected to hit $1.9 trillion.

Depends on what the Govt does with its fiscal policy. If we get a Republican in office and the past is any prologue, well see huge tax revenue cuts and big spending increases, assuredly increasing the deficit.

Yes, I am happy that the debt is finally getting smaller as a percent of GDP.

The last time that happened was shortly after Clinton left office.

Depend on what you are measuring. If you are measuring the rate of increase, then yes, it turned around after it stopped accelerating to 100 and started decelerating.

Nor can we cut taxes our way out of debt.

So we better stop electing ideologues and instead putting people in office who will compromise on tax increases along with controlling spending relative to GDP.

Though actually, we can inflate our way out of debt. With 4% inflation, and a balanced budget, the relative size of the debt is halved in 18 years.

 

We already have 5% unemployment. It's not going to get a heck of a lot lower. So we're not going so see any substantial increase in revenues from that.

We've already massively cut spending:
Year - Outlays - % GDP
2009 3,517.7 24.4%
2010 3,457.1 23.1%
2011 3,603.1 23.2%
2012 3,537.1 21.9%
2013 3,454.6 20.7%
2014 3,504.2 20.1%

20.1% of GDP is lower than every year Reagan and Bush were in office.

Baby boomers are now retiring en masse which will create further spending pressures. Conservatives will not tolerate massive military cuts. So unless you can convince retiring boomers to cut their benes, additional major spending cuts are not likely.

You are a minority. But squeezing tax payers is an answer. The richest 10% and especially 1% and 0.1% are fatter than ever after three decades of "trickle down" economics. The richest 1% is no getting 20% of the nation's income and has about 40% of the nation's well. We could raise their taxes by 50 percentage points, and they'd still be far better off than they were 35 years ago before the Reagan trickle down revolution.

There is plenty of revenue to fund our needs. Just the political will to do it is lacking.

 

Lots of fat to be trimmed, before we start taking away from those that have had success. Moving programs from the federal level to the state level. Education, training and social services spending was over 100 billion at the federal level, that can all be moved to the states phased in, like welfare was. The federal government has no need to be involved in those programs, outside setting the minimum standard for states to follow and overseeing it. Minimal costs. Same with transportation, which I know is taxed on gas receipts. Move all that to the state level too. I'm also sure of the thousands of agencies at the fed level we have a bunch can be combined to save overhead too.
overall spending down a mere 13 billion dollars is hardly massive cuts. There is fat in defense spending that needs to be cut, the GOP need to realize that. There is also a ton of fat elsewhere that can be cut. SS and medicare are in trouble unless you raise the medicare tax to 2.5% and lift the cap on SS. Hard reality, but needed if you want to keep those programs.

 

Actually I would only say the rate of speed diminished, and a turn around would be a change from a positive speed to a negative speed.

We could if spending was also being reduced.

I might go along with that if it the compromise was on tax increases and spending DECREASES.

And what would the debt interest rate be?

 

Again, depends on what you are measuring.

And we could spend more if taxes were increased more.

That's a false compromise. Just to keep up with population growth, inflation, and GDP spending needs to increase.

If the debt is not increasing then it would be a function of the interest rate on govt debt.

 

I would be just as concerned about going over a cliff at 20 mph as I would at 100 mph.

We could spend more if we borrowed more also.

And it should be being spent by those earning what is being spent, not as a result of government paying them for existing.

Are you saying government would be able to borrow money at less than the rate of inflation? And who would they be borrowing from?

 

Me too. So what?

Astute. So what?

Tell your so-called "job creators" we gave trillions in tax cuts to to start creating jobs instead of sticking the money in their stock portfolios and offshore accounts.

They do all the time. From people who want to stash their wealth is a safe place.

 

Please tell me the interest rate you claim lenders would find acceptable during your 18 year period of 4% inflation.
Why were TIPS created?

 

Depends.

 

Obviously, so let's return to reality.

 

So why ask the question?

 

That should also be obvious.

 

If it was obvious I wouldn't ask and you'd be able to answer my question.

 

Sorry, I assumed I was talking to an adult. You asked why I didn't answer your question, which I did answer. Your question was relative to my first asking you make your claim of "Though actually, we can inflate our way out of debt. With 4% inflation, and a balanced budget, the relative size of the debt is halved in 18 years." credible by providing a rational interest rate which would be accepted by investors in our debt during that period of inflation, to which you irrationally responded "Depends". You seem to imply that investors would be willing or perhaps even wanting to invest with expectations of an assured zero or even worse a negative return.

So it's obvious you don't really take everything into account when making a claim which leads to others asking questions in hopes that you will recognize your mistakes.

I'm hoping that answers 'your' question, and maybe even rethink your claim which I questioned.

 

Jeez, was all that whining and pouting really necessary to answer a simple question?

Most people or entities don't by US Govt bonds because of the great returns. They buy them because it is the safest place to keep your money.

And of course it "depends". There are many factors that affect interest rates and demand for US Govt debt other than the inflation rate. When there is any hint of global or economic insecurity, for example, hundreds of billions of dollars flock to US Govt debt.

 

Just stating the facts, not whining or pouting.

If government bonds were paying no interest money would be just as safe if kept in a safe or a safe deposit box.

Your hypothetical assumed a constant 4% inflation rate over an 18 year period without taking interest into account at all, implying that it would halve the relative size of the debt as though there are no other factors which need be taken into account. I agree, your hypothetical claim is correct but delusive.

And TIPS are an excellent way to not lose value due to inflation. An investment of $1000 in a TIP bearing 3.825% interest purchased in 1999 would be worth $1359.98 today. The BLS inflation calculator shows the inflation over that period of time was 28.8% while the TIP grew 36%, while only a meager 0.007% per year average, above the inflation rate. I'm sure you could care less, but many of us like to look a the whole picture, and not just what supports an agenda of increasing and/or creating greater problems as a result for future generations to have to contend with.

 

The Democrats, including Senator and then President Obama, did not take over budget control in 2009 they did so in 2007.

So what, the Democrats including Senator and then President Obama took control of the budget in 2007.

You will see tax RATE cuts and soaring tax REVENUES.........learn the difference.

Because of Republican fiscal policy. Policies you to which you voice your opposition.

Depend on what you are measuring. If you are measuring the rate of increase, then yes, it turned around after it stopped accelerating to 100 and started decelerating.

By cutting tax rates we certainly can, it's was part of the policies that produced the surpluses and got us out of the 2000/2001 recession slowdown and brought the deficit down to that paltry $161B. Under Democrats policies we never came close to that again and in fact hit $1,400B, more than 3 times the worst Republican deficit.

Talking out both sides your mouth again, so you DO you support austerity or not?

So you believe the government inflating the currency is the way to get out of debt now?

 

But they never have controlled spending. Republicans talk all the time about it but please name one Republican President since 1980 that controlled spending? Iriemon is exactly correct with her numbers how one can argue basic math is beyond any belief. She is telling basic history and math. You arguring a mythical ideology that was sold to America but has never come true. I often wonder if Republicans think Unicorns are real this thrwad proved my thinking

 

Are you kidding? The claims on the left in this thread are ridiculous, such as the "slowly improving economy is putting more people to work". The economy is treading water, job "growth" barely matches the population increase. And the so-called good news requiring a "PF Exclusive" roflol is that the 2015 deficit is a tiny bit lower then last year? Even though its projected to start increasing again next year?

This thread is a joke, it shows the desperation of the "progressives" that a trivial item be hailed as a milestone.

 

name one republican president since 1980m that has lowered the deficit? I do not think you can.

 

That's your measure of success - irresponsibly spending less than the previous irresponsible President? My standards are much higher (which is to be expected of a Conservative). My measure of success is being responsible and honest.

And why do you limit your test to post 1980? Are you that uncertain?

Your post reinforces the concept that this entire thread is a desperate attempt by "progressives" to show some sign of victory.

 

Presidents alone don't control spending, where did you learn they did? And Iriemon's numbers are routinely refuted along with how he/she misrepresents the data.

And define "control spending"? Is raising spending 9% one year and then 18% the next "controlling spending"?

 

Iriemon number are accurate from the source. You just do not want to believe them and yes Presidents do have a hand in controlling spending. You seem to contradict yourself her you blame Obama for spend yet praise at the alter of Reagan. I already know what your response this is I have heard it to many times. Nothing Iriemon has said has been false, you just do not want to give credit where credit is due.


Oh I am still waiting on a Repunlicna President that reduced the budget over the last thirty years.