"TreasuryDirect gives the complete debt, in a simple format" IF the conversation WAS about debt that would be helpful. IT'S NOT. It's about YEARLY BUDGETS. Money coming in versus money going out in a yearly (Oct 1-Sept 30th) basis
What if you take in more than you spend, but you borrow more money, say to have cash on hand to cover anticipated expenses?
Then address ALL the money that comes in and ALL the money that goes out. You are not doing that, and when you do you find that the net of the total money in and the total money out equals the change in the total national debt. You are repeating yourself, and so am I. If you don't get it by now, you are beyond the ability of this forum to educate. Spend some time reading, not repeating the same propaganda.
I did. JUST because EXCESS taxes come into the treasury and as required by law, buy bonds DOESN'T refute the FACT that ALL revenues are counted AND ALL YEARLY EXPENSES ALSO!
You've already been given that information previously. Here it is again, from your Treasury Department, giving ALL the money that comes in and ALL the money that goes out. Monthly Treasury Statement These files contain the monthly receipts/outlays and deficit/surplus of the United States published in Table 1 of the Monthly Treasury Statement, for fiscal years 1981-2014. The figures reflect backdated adjustments and may be amended (monthly) based on agency reporting. http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/current.htm Here's the data for FY2000: Period - Receipts - Outlays - Deficit/Surplus(-) Oct-99 121,035 r147,361 r26,326 Nov-99 121,375 r148,406 27,031 Dec-99 201,196 168,114 -33,081 Jan-00 189,478 127,326 -62,152 Feb-00 108,675 150,409 41,734 Mar-00 135,582 170,962 35,380 Apr-00 r295,151 r135,653 -159,497 May-00 146,002 149,612 3,611 Jun-00 214,875 r158,986 -55,888 Jul-00 134,074 r129,013 -5,061 Aug-00 138,128 148,555 10,427 Sep-00 r219,490 r153,743 -65,747 Cumulative for 12 months ending Sep (FY2000): -$236.917 billion (Surplus) You are repeating yourself. If you don't get it by now, you are beyond the ability of this forum to educate. Spend some time reading, not repeating the same propaganda from a RW computer programmer with no background in accounting or economics.
I think it's simple. 1trillion $ in tax revenue yet still a nearly $200 billion deficit. Looks like we're spending more than we're making. Thnx liberal Democrats. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...venues-top-1-trillion-thru-january-govt-still
It's simple. $3.5 trillion in spending and still a $1/2 trillion deficit. Looks like we're collecting less tax revenue than we're spending. Thnx conservative Republicans
I don't think you're accounting for the Social Security Surplus... if Soc. Security takes in more than it spends, by law it has to invest the surplus in nonmarketable Federal Debt. This increases the Federal debt, but so long as the Budget is balanced, it takes money out of the credit markets and puts downward pressure on interest rates. For the debt not to increase Soc. Security would have had to take it's surplus and put it into some giant mattress or something.
Yes thanks Republicans that the deficits are down to $1/2 trillion, you DO credit them with the austerity and lower spending don't you?
#Obamaquester? They were for it before they were against it Is the GOP attempting to rewrite history on the sequester? It certainly seems that way.' Its totally disingenuous, he told Buzzfeed. The debt ceiling deal in 2011 was agreed to by Republicans and Democrats. And regardless of who came up with the sequester, they all voted for it. Here are highlights from some GOPers who seem to be changing their tune: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell 2011: The bill does not solve the problem but it at least forces Washington to admit that it has one, and the upcoming debate is not something to dread. 2013: Obama is presenting the country with only two options: Armageddon or a tax hike. Well its a false choice and he knows it. But then the president is master at creating the impression of chaos as an excuse for government. Speaker John Boehner 2011:When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98% of what I wanted. Im pretty happy. 2013: The cuts are Obamas sequester. The Senate needs to get off their ass and do something The American people know if the president gets more money theyre going to spend it. The fact is that hes gotten his tax hikes. Its time to focus on the real problem here I Washington and thats spending. Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida 2011: Miller voted for the sequester. 2013: The Administrations sequestration threatens to reduce our militarys readiness and throw our nation into another recession. Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois 2011: Roskam, too, voted in favor of the sequestration. 2013: The sequester is the presidents sequester. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia In 2011: Cantor acknowledged the Budget Control Act was not perfect but praised the House for having prevented default and boosted economic certainty by ensuring America pays its bills while we start getting our fiscal house in order It will finally begin to change the way Washington spends its taxpayers dollars. In 2013: The president, hes the one that proposed the sequester in the first place. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin In 2011: What conservatives like me have been fighting for, for years, are statutory caps on spending, legal caps in law that says government agencies cannot spend over a set amount of money, he told Fox News. And if they breach that amount across the board, sequester comes in to cut that spending, and you cant turn that off without a super-majority vote. We got that into law. On the House floor, he said the law was a victory for those committed to controlling government spending. In 2013: The sequester will probably occur because the president has not a proposal yet on the table Dont forget, its the president who first proposed the sequester. Its the president who designed the sequester as it is now designed. http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/obamaquester
Nope just like with Clinton increasing tax rates as the economy is recovering and revenue growth accelerating and he slowed that growth as you well know, so have the Obama tax rate increases. Actual 2010 2.67% 2011 6.11% 2012 5.99% 2013 11.71% 2014 8.15% Projected curve without the increase 2010 2.67% 2011 6.11% 2012 5.99% 2013 8.24% 2014 9.90% As you can see revenues were heading to 9.9%, but after his first year blip that rate of growth is slower than it would have been, he bent the curve down. But I asked about spending which you want to avoid so please address what I asked Yes thanks Republicans that the deficits are down to $1/2 trillion, you DO credit them with the austerity and lower spending don't you?
"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 The austerity spending cuts have reduced the deficits as well, but at a cost of reducing economic growth, so it's hard to say how much they have really helped.