• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Surprise! Huge US Budget Surplus Shatters Record

Kushinator said:
I have already explained my position:

The U.S. deficit projects to have a Jan-Dec decline of roughly 60%.

That.... is good news no matter how much you hate the current administration.
Click to expand...

I know. The markets are just too dumb to figure that out because they're down today. I guess the markets just aren't as knowledgeable about this stuff as you are. ;)
 
Papa bull said:
I know. The markets are just too dumb to figure that out because they're down today. I guess the markets just aren't as knowledgeable about this stuff as you are. ;)
Click to expand...

This is a straw man argument. Equity market reaction is not the foremost authority on what constitutes good news. That your argument has gone to this extent only displays the disparity of your position.

Your typical knee-jerk reaction to cognitive dissonance.
 
Kushinator said:
This is a straw man argument. Equity market reaction is not the foremost authority on what constitutes good news. That your argument has gone to this extent only displays the disparity of your position.

Your typical knee-jerk reaction to cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

Of course the equity markets aren't nearly as sharp about what is and isn't good news as you are. That's why you're filthy rich. You know stuff. :) Pffft... equity markets don't know nuthin' about economics. Not compared to you.

rofl.jpg
 
Papa bull said:
Of course the equity markets aren't nearly as sharp about what is and isn't good news as you are. That's why you're filthy rich. You know stuff. :) Pffft... equity markets don't know nuthin' about economics. Not compared to you.

rofl
Click to expand...

Equity markets are driven by profits and future expectation of said profits. They are not a barometer to all good and holy.

Take for example Bernanke stating that asset purchases will not decline until U.S. economic activity increases to a sustainable level. Because growth was looking good, some speculators began getting extremely short Treasuries and U.S. equities declined well below recent all time highs. Markets calmed down and interest rates have come down about 20 basis points (roughly 17%). We are now sitting close to historic highs.
 
Kushinator said:
Equity markets are driven by profits and future expectation of said profits. They are not a barometer to all good and holy.

Take for example Bernanke stating that asset purchases will not decline until U.S. economic activity increases to a sustainable level. Because growth was looking good, some speculators began getting extremely short Treasuries and U.S. equities declined well below recent all time highs. Markets calmed down and interest rates have come down about 20 basis points (roughly 17%). We are now sitting close to historic highs.
Click to expand...

Their indifference spoke volumes. This was not "big" news. It didn't even hit the "financial' news segments. It was a big, fat, hairy ZERO. The funny thing is that you must know that by now, but you're so invested in pretending it is a big, fat, hairy deal that you can't let it go.

That's OK. I needed a good laugh on a Friday. Have a nice weekend.
 
More then 1/2 of the surplus came from Freddie/Fannie.

Most of the rest I believe came from added revenues (I.e. Americans have to give more of their money to the government).


When a surplus is due to slashing government expenditures without a raise in revenues...then I will DEFINITELY applaud it.

That won't be anytime soon, I am afraid.
 
Kushinator said:
How is someone with such a limited understanding of finance arguing so
aggressively? You think you would take your lumps and just move on....

It won't impact equity markets because..... the news is not earnings-centric. Meaning, U.S. publicly listed companies will not, i repeat, will not reap the types of economic benefits your ideology vehemently believe in; lower deficits create income (where as in fact, it is the other way around).

Look at bond bond prices. They have increased, which of course makes all the sense in the world if you were a bond trader and the supply of deficit orientated treasury issuance was looking to fall in considerable fashion.
Click to expand...

Bond values are up right in the middle of unprecedented QE.

I can't think of a more distressing indicator when perpetually low interest rates cause a increase in bond values or bond sales.

One of the supposed and intended effects of Bernakes QE was to push people out of bonds and into more risky securities.
 
DA60 said:
More then 1/2 of the surplus came from Freddie/Fannie.

Most of the rest I believe came from added revenues (I.e. Americans have to give more of their money to the government).


When a surplus is due to slashing government expenditures without a raise in revenues...then I will DEFINITELY applaud it.

That won't be anytime soon, I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Or when the $100B is actually applied to the debt ...
 
blaxshep said:
Or when the $100B is actually applied to the debt ...
Click to expand...

Hear hear.


It's like a guy who has huge debts and finds $100 on the ground.

Instead of paying down what he owes with it, he goes out and buys more 'stuff' he wants but does not need with it.
 
Fenton said:
Bond values are up right in the middle of unprecedented QE.

I can't think of a more distressing indicator when perpetually low interest rates cause a increase in bond values or bond sales.

One of the supposed and intended effects of Bernakes QE was to push people out of bonds and into more risky securities.
Click to expand...

Its called, stronger economic outlook headlined by an increase in lending activity.
 
windowdressing said:
according to how we've constructed race in this country, he is ... for most of our history one drop has been enough ... Have you seen photos of Homer Plessey (Plessey v. Ferguson, 1896)? You'd assume he was white, yet that case gave constitutional cover to racial segregation until 1954.
Click to expand...

Wow! Using racist legislariin to prove that Obama is black. Lol!
 
Kushinator said:
Its called, stronger economic outlook headlined by an increase in lending
activity.
Click to expand...

With interest rates this low that doesn't surprise, although the " stronger economic outlook" isn't reflected in Job Growth.

The reality is Obama has never presided over a American economy minus his training wheels like a " big boy President ".

The perpetual QE and pumping plus massive spending.

I'm fair so when his policies minus the massive liquidity, minus the massive spending, produces SUBSTANTIAL growth, and that includes NET Jobs gains high enough to keep up and SURPASS Population increases then I'll give him some credit.

Otherwise Barry will be relgated to what he's been for the last 5 years, peddling along with allot of help and a HUGE helment. you know to cover the ears ?

( NSA is going to nab me for that one, they'll ignore all of the other highly critical post I'm responsible for, but their kicking down my door for the ear thing.)

A president disconected, with very destructive Fiscal and Monetary policies on auto pilot.
 
GottaGo said:
Budget surplus, means your not spending as much as you budgeted for *that period*.
Click to expand...
No, surplus as in you took in more than you spent. Projections have nothing to do with it.
 
blaxshep said:
Tax revenues only went up $85B for the year, nice try.
Click to expand...
You're mistaken. The year over year difference in revenues for April alone was 88 billion dollars.
 
GottaGo said:
Budget surplus....
Click to expand...
Which means nothing at all. Surpluses and deficits are measured entirely in terms of outlays - revenues. If the federal government spent double what was thought to be needed for the month of June, yet took in revenue exceeding that figure, they would have recorded a surplus. Spending projections or projections of any kind don't come into play at all.
 
a351 said:
Which means nothing at all. Surpluses and deficits are measured entirely in terms of outlays - revenues. If the federal government spent double what was thought to be needed for the month of June, yet took in revenue exceeding that figure, they would have recorded a surplus. Spending projections or projections of any kind don't come into play at all.
Click to expand...

Considering the Title specifically uses the word 'budget', and 'surplus', and how those terms are used in conjunction with one another in finance, my statement is correct.

That's what government likes to call a 'dynamic budget'. Basically, whatever they damn well please to spend.
 
GottaGo said:
Considering the Title specifically uses the word 'budget', and 'surplus', and how those terms are used in conjunction with one another in finance, my statement is correct.

That's what government likes to call a 'dynamic budget'. Basically, whatever they damn well please to spend.
Click to expand...
Yet your're using them incorrectly. Perhaps you're referring to household finance?

Spending fluctuates with the circumstances of the present. The reduction in spending cited in the month of June included a decrease in student loans, an expenditure that can fluctuate greatly from month to month. According to your definition an increase in that category that pushed cumulative outlays past the projections for the month by say, 1 billion dollars, would not be considered a surplus even if revenue exceeded that figure by tenfold. It's an inapplicable and absurd definition.
 
a351 said:
Yet your're using them incorrectly. Perhaps you're referring to household finance?

Spending fluctuates with the circumstances of the present. The reduction in spending cited in the month of June included a decrease in student loans, an expenditure that can fluctuate greatly from month to month. According to your definition an increase in that category that pushed cumulative outlays past the projections for the month by say, 1 billion dollars, would not be considered a surplus even if revenue exceeded that figure by tenfold. It's an inapplicable and absurd definition.
Click to expand...

Dynamic Budget. It is what it is.
 
I don't think this can be attributed to a single party honestly. One good month doesn't mean that we are out of trouble either. There needs to be a continuation of improvement in the job market coupled with a continued decrease of spending if the ball is to keep rolling.
 
GottaGo said:
Budget surplus, means your not spending as much as you budgeted for *that period*.
Click to expand...

Budget surplus means taking in more than you spent. You can have a budget surplus when spending MORE than you budgeted, if your receipts were more than you spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom