Federal deficit higher in July, $1.27T this year

donsutherland1 · Aug 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
Like... what?
The CBO revenue/spending numbers include ALL spending, on and off budget.

When I refer to the Bush Administration, I am referring to OMB. For starters, OMB kept the costs associated with the war in Iraq off-budget.

Changes in gross public debt are a better indicator, they reflect the actual costs of government. Under President Bush and so far under President Obama, there has been a noted increase in gross public debt. The key challenge will be whether the Obama Administration adopts a credible fiscal consolidation plan once the economy is on a sustainable growth path.

Historic experience and political expediency (particularly with election-related dynamics) suggest that such a plan is probably not very likely. That no meaningful efforts have been made to address the nation's mandatory spending imbalances since the Reagan-era Greenspan Commission is quite revealing as to the approach typically pursued by Administrations--Democratic and Republican. The recent Budget-related legislation that exempts increases in physician payments or renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions from requiring offsetting spending cuts/tax hikes also suggests that Congress is inclined to refrain from making the tough choices that would be required for a credible fiscal consolidation effort. Time will tell, but if I had to speculate, prospects for a credible fiscal consolidation plan do not look good for the near-term and probably beyond.

celticlord · Aug 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
FY008 revenue: $2524.3B
FY2008 spending:$2982.9B
Deficit: $458.5B

Total Public debt at start of FY2008 (1 Oct 2007): 9,007,653,372,262.48
Total Public debt at end of FY2008 (30 Sep 2008): 10,024,724,896,912.49

Increase in total Public debt in FY 2008: $1,017,071,524,650.01

$962,172,496,555.86 is the real federal deficit for 2008.

Total Public debt at start of FY2009 (1 Oct 2008): 10,024,724,896,912.49
Total Public debt as of today (11 Aug 2009): 11,666,485,985,007.89

Increase in total public debt to date in FY 2009: $1,641,761,088,095.4

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Goobieman · Aug 13, 2009

donsutherland1 said:
When I refer to the Bush Administration, I am referring to OMB. For starters, OMB kept the costs associated with the war in Iraq off-budget.

Well, OK, but the revenue/outlay figures from the CBO include all on and off budget spending, and so the deficit figures posted by the CBO are accurate.

The key challenge will be whether the Obama Administration adopts a credible fiscal consolidation plan once the economy is on a sustainable growth path.

My bet, like yours: Nope.

Goobieman · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
Total Public debt at start of FY2008 (1 Oct 2007): 9,062,552,400,356.63
Total Public debt at end of FY2008 (30 Sep 2008): 10,024,724,896,912.49

Increase in total Public debt in FY 2008: $962,172,496,555.86

Yes. The difference is the IOUs given to the 'SocSec trust fund'.

stekim · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
Total Public debt at start of FY2008 (1 Oct 2007): 9,062,552,400,356.63
Total Public debt at end of FY2008 (30 Sep 2008): 10,024,724,896,912.49

Increase in total Public debt in FY 2008: $962,172,496,555.86

$962,172,496,555.86 is the real federal deficit for 2008.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Sort of! Let's not forget that the deficit is reduced by the fact we borrow excess social security funds and spend them. We have a huge debt payable to ourselves.

celticlord · Aug 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
Yes. The difference is the IOUs given to the 'SocSec trust fund'.

Debt is debt. The figure is the total amount owed by the government.

Note: I revised my starting figure for FY2008. As the numbers posted are the numbers as of the end of the business day, the actual starting number for any period is the last period's closing number. Thus the correct statement of the public debt at the start of FY 2008 is the debt outstanding as of 30 September 2007, not 1 October 2007. As you can see, the differential is significant.

celticlord · Aug 13, 2009

stekim said:
Sort of! Let's not forget that the deficit is reduced by the fact we borrow excess social security funds and spend them. We have a huge debt payable to ourselves.

Not sort of. If the Government is carrying the debt on the books it is a debt owed to somebody. If I hold a T-bill, that's not a "debt payable to myself" that I can just write off whimsically.

The total public debt is debt payable to somebody, at some juncture. There is no "sort of" about that.

stekim · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
Not sort of. If the Government is carrying the debt on the books it is a debt owed to somebody. If I hold a T-bill, that's not a "debt payable to myself" that I can just write off whimsically.

I think you misunderstood my post. The debt figure you provided DOES NOT include the IOU's to social security. Those are not in the form of T-bills, bonds or notes and they are not included in our national debt figures. Our national debt is far higher than the numbers you provided. Unless we just not pay social security back, of course.

phattonez · Aug 13, 2009

Kandahar said:
Yep, a huge recession will do that. :roll:

Just get rid of those libertarian symbols under your name already. Please.

Anybody that has ever paid bills before will tell you that if you don't want to be in debt, you should stop spending so much money.

Goobieman · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
Debt is debt. The figure is the total amount owed by the government.

Part of which is money that the government owes itself.
All we do when we add in SocSec IOUs to the debt is exaggerate what we owe (and how much any given deficit is).

celticlord · Aug 13, 2009

stekim said:
I think you misunderstood my post. The debt figure you provided DOES NOT include the IOU's to social security. Those are not in the form of T-bills, bonds or notes and they are not included in our national debt figures. Our national debt is far higher than the numbers you provided. Unless we just not pay social security back, of course.

Ah...yes, the total public debt is not inclusive of Social Security IOUs.

However, it is the total debt we need to worry about--it's the debt that has a legally enforceable debt instrument floating around in somebody's hands.

The Social Security "IOUs" are really nothing of the sort. Government has simply spent the taxes collected via FICA on other things. The IOU is a sham device because it exists in the form of a special Treasury debt that can only be issued to (and redeemed by) the Social Security Administration. Because of this bit of fiscal legerdemain, the Social Security trust fund does not actually exist--not in the way we typically comprehend trust funds; it is not managed as a portfolio, it does not speculate in regular issue treasury securities. The trust fund and the IOUs are merely accounting devices to shift Social Security tax revenues into the general coffers, and to pull Social Security expenditures from the general coffers.

The "debt" of Social Security is the huge (and growing) unfunded future liability as tax revenues slip below expenditures as the baby boom generation retires. That liability will cause future total public debt to skyrocket, as the Social Security Administration drains the trust of those special-purpose Treasury bonds, which, to fund their redemption, will compel the Treasury to issue regular marketable bonds. However, in terms of legally obligated and collectible debt denominated on debt instruments, the figures cited are the total public debt for the periods cited.

celticlord · Aug 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
Part of which is money that the government owes itself.
All we do when we add in SocSec IOUs to the debt is exaggerate what we owe (and how much any given deficit is).

As stekim pointed out, the Social Security IOUs are not part of the total public debt. Those IOUs exist as special issue Treasury bonds that by law can be issued only to the Social Security Administration and can only be redeemed by the Social Security Administration. They are not "public debt" as such, merely an accounting device to shift money in and out of the social security trust fund.

Goobieman · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
As stekim pointed out, the Social Security IOUs are not part of the total public debt. Those IOUs exist as special issue Treasury bonds that by law can be issued only to the Social Security Administration and can only be redeemed by the Social Security Administration. They are not "public debt" as such, merely an accounting device to shift money in and out of the social security trust fund.

But, they are all included in the debt numbers you posted.

stekim · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
Ah...yes, the total public debt is not inclusive of Social Security IOUs.

However, it is the total debt we need to worry about--it's the debt that has a legally enforceable debt instrument floating around in somebody's hands.

Well, think of it this way: We are not going to fail to pay any of it. The voters will never allow the SS money to not get paid back. Never. Well, short of total bankruptcy anyway. So we do, in fact, have to worry about that, too. The voters would vote to default on T-notes before SS payments. I guarantee it. It would be stupid, sure. But we are talking about the US voter. Holders of our debt need to be more worried than Grandma does, regardless of the "enforceability" of the notes.

The Social Security "IOUs" are really nothing of the sort. Government has simply spent the taxes collected via FICA on other things. The IOU is a sham device because it exists in the form of a special Treasury debt that can only be issued to (and redeemed by) the Social Security Administration.

I never said different. I only said it's getting paid back and needs to be included when talking about future obligations of the U.S. government.

Because of this bit of fiscal legerdemain, the Social Security trust fund does not actually exist--not in the way we typically comprehend trust funds; it is not managed as a portfolio, it does not speculate in regular issue treasury securities. The trust fund and the IOUs are merely accounting devices to shift Social Security tax revenues into the general coffers, and to pull Social Security expenditures from the general coffers.

I am well aware of that.

The "debt" of Social Security is the huge (and growing) unfunded future liability as tax revenues slip below expenditures as the baby boom generation retires. That liability will cause future total public debt to skyrocket, as the Social Security Administration drains the trust of those special-purpose Treasury bonds, which, to fund their redemption, will compel the Treasury to issue regular marketable bonds. However, in terms of legally obligated and collectible debt denominated on debt instruments, the figures cited are the total public debt for the periods cited.

I never said differently. I only said (again) that you can bet your ass the SS money "borrowed" over the years is getting paid back, regardless of its status as a "legally obligated and collectible debt denominated on debt instrument". When it comes to the SS money you are merely arguing semantics because the tax payer will make sure the government remains obligated for said payments. So to exclude that from our future obligations is simply acting like a governmental bureaucrat (which I realize you are not).

You are quite right when you say the "debt" is the number you provided. But it's far better to look at future "obligations" because THAT's what we will be paying.

stekim · Aug 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
But, they are all included in the debt numbers you posted.

Not they are not. The money taken from SS is not in the debt figures. We take it, spend it, issue SS an IOU, and THEN issue debt to make up the rest. That debt is displayed in Celticlord's figures. So yes, it's FAR worse than it looks.

Goobieman · Aug 13, 2009

stekim said:
Not they are not. The money taken from SS is not in the debt figures. We take it, spend it, issue SS an IOU, and THEN issue debt to make up the rest. That debt is displayed in Celticlord's figures. So yes, it's FAR worse than it looks.

I know. That was my point.
If you look at pure outlays v receipts for FY2008, the deficit was 458B
But, the number he posted was considerably higher -- if it doesnt include the debt to SS, then why is it more?

celticlord · Aug 13, 2009

stekim said:
Well, think of it this way: We are not going to fail to pay any of it. The voters will never allow the SS money to not get paid back. Never. Well, short of total bankruptcy anyway. So we do, in fact, have to worry about that, too. The voters would vote to default on T-notes before SS payments. I guarantee it. It would be stupid, sure. But we are talking about the US voter. Holders of our debt need to be more worried than Grandma does, regardless of the "enforceability" of the notes.

The question is always how to present and quantify that number. That obligation is as yet uncertain--and has to be uncertain, because the future events that trigger the obligation have yet to occur. That the events will occur is not a question; what is a question is when, and thus what present dollar value should be assigned to that obligation. A dollar owed today is a larger debt than a dollar owed tomorrow, and far larger than a dollar owed next year.

For that reason, it is necessary to differentiate between total public debt (money owed today) and social security obligations (money owed tomorrow and next year).

stekim said:
You are quite right when you say the "debt" is the number you provided. But it's far better to look at future "obligations" because THAT's what we will be paying.

It's important to look at both--indeed, one cannot look at one and not the other and do the numbers justice overall. The amount of existing public debt defines the government's capacity to fund that future liability, for the trigger events that make that future liability a present liability will also compel the issuance of debt. The conversion of that future liability to a present liability is the transfer of that obligation into the total public debt figure.

The key is the time factor. The future nature of the Social Security obligation means that number represents what the total public debt will be, unless alternative funding sources are identified and implemented.

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
Federal deficit higher in July, $1.27T this year - Yahoo! Finance

Did anyone catch this part:

$1.84T is >90% of the TOTAL of the deficts run under GWB.

:shock:

But dontchyaknow Goobie it's all Bush's fault. :rofl

What is more stunning that even while admitting they are drowning the American tax payer in a sea of red ink and turning our currency into monopoly money they want to spend another several trillions on Government insured health insurance.

You just cannot fabricate the level of criminal irresponsibility we are seeing from Democrats who lied about being "fiscally" more responsible than Republicans and who lied about pay as they go and who have done nothing but lie to the American people about how they will pay for all this irresponsible spending for purely partisan political reasons.

When Bush was President all we heard from these cretins was how he needed to raise taxes....raise taxes....raise taxes. Now after spending trillions they don't have, not one tiny peep about raising taxes.

I hope that by the end of this liars first term in office, the American people can wake up and see these Democrats for what they are; lying despicable assholes who don't give a rats behind about the American people, the poor or the hard working who start businesses and make the economy go.

All we have gotten from this Administration has been hyper partisan legislation, lies, distortions and a deficit that makes all previous deficits look like chump change.

stekim · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
The question is always how to present and quantify that number. That obligation is as yet uncertain--and has to be uncertain, because the future events that trigger the obligation have yet to occur. That the events will occur is not a question; what is a question is when, and thus what present dollar value should be assigned to that obligation. A dollar owed today is a larger debt than a dollar owed tomorrow, and far larger than a dollar owed next year.

For that reason, it is necessary to differentiate between total public debt (money owed today) and social security obligations (money owed tomorrow and next year).

I see your point. We do not know the exact amount of our future SS obligations. We do know, however, what those IOU's total. They should also have a "debt" clock for those. Even if the numbers are nebulous in terms of future payouts.

The key is the time factor. The future nature of the Social Security obligation means that number represents what the total public debt will be, unless alternative funding sources are identified and implemented.

Right. Which is why we need to get started on finding said sources! Because the potential debt numbers would scare the hell out of people.

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

Kandahar said:
A deep recession means that tax revenues fall off a cliff because individuals/businesses aren't making as much money to tax. It also means that tax expenditures will increase because there are more unemployment claims and more strains on anti-poverty programs...not to mention bailouts and stimuli.

Hmm. Less tax revenue + more tax expenditure = Bigger deficit. How is this an excuse?

10th grade economics fail.

This has NOTHING to do with falling revenue; they passed trillions in UNFUNDED spending bills claiming they could BUY their way out of a recession on the back of the American people.

When Bush spent us into a deficit fighting 9-11, two wars and Katrina, you were railing about his "Democrat" big spending I am sure. What vast hypocrisy or denial does it now take to acknowledge that Obama has taken irresponsible deficit spending into the stratosphere.

Good lord, I don't know which is more pathetic, the excuse making or blaming Bush for everything.

Goobieman · Aug 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
When Bush was President all we heard from these cretins was how he needed to raise taxes....raise taxes....raise taxes. Now after spending trillions they don't have, not one tiny peep about raising taxes.

You absolutely correct.
Every single person that complained about GWBs deficits should be screaming at thr top of their lungs about The Obama's -- and if they are not, they've clearly illustrated how much of a partisan hack they really are.

stekim · Aug 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
You absolutely correct.
Every single person that complained about GWBs deficits should be screaming at thr top of their lungs about The Obama's -- and if they are not, they've clearly illustrated how much of a partisan hack they really are.

Same the other way!

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

donsutherland1 said:
It should be noted that had the Bush Administration not kept signficant expenditures off-budget, the deficit would have been substantially higher. For example, during President Bush's last year in office, gross public debt rose by just over $1 trillion. In part, the recession's rapid deepening contributed. However, in part, earlier tax policy changes, the creation of Medicare Part D, and the off-budget treatment of such expenditures as the costs associated with the Iraq war also contributed. IMO, policy differences aside, transparency would be served by keeping all expenditures on-budget.

Of course, the government is not alone in carrying out practices that limit transparency. In the private sector, major items e.g., derivatives exposures, etc., are generally maintained off the balance sheet, stock options are not expensed, etc.

I keep hearing this inane "off budget" crapola; but in the end the deficit is the total of revenues less expenditures regardless of whether it was ON or OFF budget and the FACT remains that the largest of the Bush deficits was approximately $200 billion.

I am fascinated that Liberals try to excuse the criminally irresponsible spending we are seeing from Democrats by continually pointing the finger at Bush; you're kidding me right???!!!

:roll:

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

celticlord said:
Not sort of. If the Government is carrying the debt on the books it is a debt owed to somebody. If I hold a T-bill, that's not a "debt payable to myself" that I can just write off whimsically.

The total public debt is debt payable to somebody, at some juncture. There is no "sort of" about that.

....WITH interest. One of the largest components of the budget and soon to be even larger.

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

stekim said:
Not they are not. The money taken from SS is not in the debt figures. We take it, spend it, issue SS an IOU, and THEN issue debt to make up the rest. That debt is displayed in Celticlord's figures. So yes, it's FAR worse than it looks.

This is an equally frightening practice that continues below the radar screen of public scrutiny.

Great; now I am even MORE depressed by our future prospects with these idiots in charge.
:roll:

Federal deficit higher in July, $1.27T this year

donsutherland1

celticlord

Well-known member

Goobieman

Goobieman

stekim

Walk with me in hell.

celticlord

Well-known member

celticlord

Well-known member

stekim

Walk with me in hell.

phattonez

Catholic

Goobieman

celticlord

Well-known member

celticlord

Well-known member

Goobieman

stekim

Walk with me in hell.

stekim

Walk with me in hell.

Goobieman

celticlord

Well-known member

Truth Detector

stekim

Walk with me in hell.

Truth Detector

Goobieman

stekim

Walk with me in hell.

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Truth Detector