Federal Deficit Hits October Record of $176 Billion

oh, i read it, thanks, took notes, indeed

unfortunately, the headline pretty much says it all

politics persistently prevail

our poor president

Strucky said:

Federal Deficit Hits October Record of $176 Billion

Government Starts New Fiscal Year Deeply in the Red

By MATTHEW JAFFE
Nov. 12, 2009

The U.S. budget deficit for October surged to $176 billion, a record for the month, the Treasury Department announced today.

During the month, the government racked up $311 billion in outlays compared with $135 billion in receipts.

The October numbers mark the first month for the new fiscal year after the U.S. wrapped up the 2009 fiscal year that ended on September 30 with a record-high $1.4 trillion budget deficit due to increased government spending to stop the recession and the financial crisis. The final deficit for the 2009 fiscal year was equal to 10 percent of the nation's GDP, the highest shortfall relative to GDP since 1945, the final year of World War II.

----------

Click to expand...

I KNOW I KNOW.
I have an idea!

Why doesn't the government take it's money - that it borrowed - for the Tarp funding and put it towards bailing out its own self!

Yes, that would help reduce the deficit.

:bon_voyag:sinking::no:

a little more copy for my econ-craving cronies

from The pointedly, specifically political Prof

concerning the trade deficit, the value of the dollar, exports, imports:

Weak dollar no quick fix for narrowing trade gap - Yahoo! News

pay especial attention to the passages pertaining to:

the 18% growth in the trade deficit in a month

the sudden drop in the dollar accomplished by these disappointing tidings

the deficit's growth 15% in excess of expectations

geithner's observation that asia is leading the world to recovery

the 1.3B in cars imported from mexico and canada, what's that mean?

united states J-O-B-S

the cash crop of the south koreans', hyundai, another clunkers client

the dollar down 12% since spring

still imports' increase is twice exports'

41.7B deficit, were one to hold the dollar steady vs accounting

treasury compelled to revise downward last quarter's pretty 3.5% gdp---ouch

the repeated arguments explaining whatever "benefits" derive from our broken dollar in terms of international trade are a long way off

exports down 20% in a year

indicating less domestic production last quarter, hence the smaller than 3.5

more than half of which increase came in car sales

play it or parse it, either way, it adds up to one crappy headline

politically speaking

The Prof said:

oh, i read it, thanks, took notes, indeed

Click to expand...

So much so you cited an article you claimed showed exports decreased but proved you entirely wrong.

Furthermore, you totally bungled the concept of what an trade deficit is.

Perhaps you read it. You clearly do not understand it.

I'd like to thanks Bush for the failed $700 billion financial bailout and Obama for his failed addition of $700 billion economic stimulus program.

All you politicians need to stay the hell away from my money.

Gibberish said:

I'd like to thanks Bush for the failed $700 billion financial bailout and Obama for his failed addition of $700 billion economic stimulus program.

All you politicians need to stay the hell away from my money.

Click to expand...

We should really stop pretending that the stimulus is a stimulus.

Only the 6% or so spent including the tax relief should be called a stimulus. The rest should be called what it actually is: long term infrastructure investment

Stimulus are meant to be timely. What Obama pushed is anything but.

obvious Child said:

We should really stop pretending that the stimulus is a stimulus.

Only the 6% or so spent including the tax relief should be called a stimulus. The rest should be called what it actually is: long term infrastructure investment

Stimulus are meant to be timely. What Obama pushed is anything but.

Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with this, this was a democrat gift basket, to states, cities, and local groups that support democrat causes. It should be investigated as a criminal matter, but I think this is why they are now pulling it back.

Jackboot said:

I have to strongly disagree with this, this was a democrat gift basket, to states, cities, and local groups that support democrat causes.

Click to expand...

Then why did huge amounts of money get poured into states with Republican governors and Congresses and directly put under the thumb of Republicans? If it was really a Democrat gift basked, strongly Republican states like Kentucky would have gotten nothing. That wasn't the case.

obvious Child said:

Then why did huge amounts of money get poured into states with Republican governors and Congresses and directly put under the thumb of Republicans? If it was really a Democrat gift basked, strongly Republican states like Kentucky would have gotten nothing. That wasn't the case.

Click to expand...

It went to social programs, with strings attached, this is why many republicans rejected the offer. This doesn't mean that republicans are not above taking bribes, many did, glady......

Jackboot said:

It went to social programs, with strings attached, this is why many republicans rejected the offer. This doesn't mean that republicans are not above taking bribes, many did, glady......

Click to expand...

Some of it went to social programs, but a large percent of it is geared towards building schools, bridges, roads, basic infrastructure. Furthermore, a large amount of it was tax relief. I really don't see the bill as a partisan favoring spending bill.

obvious Child said:

Some of it went to social programs, but a large percent of it is geared towards building schools, bridges, roads, basic infrastructure. Furthermore, a large amount of it was tax relief. I really don't see the bill as a partisan favoring spending bill.

Click to expand...

The Economic "Stimulus"
by Thomas Sowell (January 6, 2009)



Two centuries ago, when there were plans to create a huge fund of money to pay off Britain's national debt, the great classical economist David Ricardo objected on grounds that-- no matter what the money was said to be for-- politicians could spend it for whatever they wanted.

Two centuries later, we have not yet caught up to that plain reality, even though the $700 billion that was supposed to be used to rescue financial institutions has already begun to be spent on other things.

Regardless of what President Bush or Secretary of the Treasury Paulson may have had in mind when they promoted this huge bailout package, with all due respect to these gentlemen what they had in mind will not matter in the slightest after January 20th.

All that money is just a gift to the Democrats to spend in whatever ways will advance the interests of their constituents and of the Democratic Party.

It was not just a gift of money-- huge though that is-- it is also a gift of exemption from Republican criticism, even for the bailout of General Motors, which President Bush began, even when Congress refused to give GM the money without preconditions. It is a political get-out-of-jail-free card that can cover whatever disasters the Democrats create on their own in the years ahead.

The whole idea behind the "stimulus" package begins to look more and more dubious as the outlines of the policy begin to take shape.

Take the idea that much of this money will be spent on "infrastructure." This certainly sounds good-- until you stop and think about it. So do most political notions.

Does spending on infrastructure mean that the money is going to be spent filling potholes and repairing bridges? Or will it be spent creating new things?

One of the key reasons why infrastructure gets neglected, in the first place, is that there is very little political pay-off to filling potholes and repairing bridges, compared to spending that same money creating community centers, bike paths and other things.

These new things create opportunities for ribbon-cutting ceremonies that give politicians favorable free publicity in the media. But nobody holds ribbon-cutting ceremonies for filling in potholes or repairing bridges.

The whole process is biased toward doing new things, even if the repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure would serve the public interest better.

But, even in the unlikely event that the public interest triumphs over special interests, there is another very important difference between repair and maintenance activities, on the one hand, versus building new things on the other.

New things require long delays before they can get started, especially when they have to be done by politicians. Someone once said that Congress would take 30 days to make instant coffee-- and Congress is just the beginning of the delays, as all sorts of competing interests jockey for position at the public trough.

Just putting together an environmental impact report for something new to be built can be a long process, especially if its findings are challenged by environmental extremists, who pay very little price for challenging, even if the delays caused by their challenges cost others millions of dollars.

In short, it can be years before the money that is supposed to stimulate the economy actually gets into the economy. And nobody knows what the economy will be like when that money finally gets into circulation.

A common problem with government economic policies in general is that it is very hard to predict how long it will be before the policy actually affects the economy. An economic stimulus policy created during a contraction in demand can take effect during an inflationary expansion of demand-- and fuel still more inflation.



The Economic "Stimulus" by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine

My favorite economist says it best.....

obvious Child said:

You clearly do not understand it.

Click to expand...

LOL!

what's not to understand about imports increasing twice as fast as exports despite a declining dollar?

what's not to comprehend about the compulsion to revise downward the 3.5 gdp?

who could misperceive that a major part of clunkers benefited canadians, mexicans and koreans?

etc

it's pretty simple, actually

and it all adds up to the biggest growth in trade deficits in a decade

ie, another unpleasant headline

obvious Child said:

We should really stop pretending that the stimulus is a stimulus.

Click to expand...

ok

what it actually is: long term infrastructure investment

Click to expand...

LOL!

where's the infrastructure in studying radioactive rabbit droppings?

a bridge connecting microsoft towers?

studies of coeds' sex lives?

turtle tunnels?

stimulus checks for the dead?

snow making machinery for minnesotans?

fish sperm freezers?

pet neutering?

signs advertising---stimulus funds at work?

basket weaving and storytelling?

etc, etc, etc?

After a flurry of stimulus spending, questionable projects pile up | Washington Examiner

infrastructure---LOL!

Stimulus are meant to be timely. What Obama pushed is anything but.

Click to expand...

no doubt

Jackboot said:

My favorite economist says it best.....

Click to expand...

You do realize he doesn't provide a single example of the Democrats doing what he claimed they would do?

The Prof said:

LOL!

what's not to understand about imports increasing twice as fast as exports despite a declining dollar?

what's not to comprehend about the compulsion to revise downward the 3.5 gdp?

who could misperceive that a major part of clunkers benefited canadians, mexicans and koreans?

Click to expand...

Goldenboy claimed that a weak dollar should push exports up. You claimed that did not happen and posted a link that showed that exports actually did increase.

Seeing how you haven't quite realized this I question your capacity to read.

Furthermore, you cited the trade imbalance as evidence exports declined yet you did not understand that exports can increase at the same time the trade deficit increases.

And tangents don't prove you weren't wrong the first time.

While I realize your capacity to read is questionable and likely your capacity to do math is equally questionable, tell me, do your cited examples exceed the amount assigned to infrastructure?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/04/16/20090416stim-water0416.html

Over $1 billion is set aside for just water infrastructure improvements.

http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

obvious Child said:

We should really stop pretending that the stimulus is a stimulus.

Only the 6% or so spent including the tax relief should be called a stimulus. The rest should be called what it actually is: long term infrastructure investment

Stimulus are meant to be timely. What Obama pushed is anything but.

Click to expand...

Long term entitlement investment would be more accurate.

apdst said:

Long term entitlement investment would be more accurate.

Click to expand...

Explain to me how building bridges is entitlement.

Oh wait I forgot. You don't know how to read, much less analyze facts and produce coherent, relevant replies.

I know there are some happy endangered frogs, some turtles, and a few artists that got stimulated.

obvious Child said:

Explain to me how building bridges is entitlement.

Oh wait I forgot. You don't know how to read, much less analyze facts and produce coherent, relevant replies.

Click to expand...

Tell us how much has been spent on actual infrastructure projects--roads, bridges, etc.--and how much has been spent on BS like free money in Detroit, marsh mouses, deer under passes, turtle tunnels and the study of Alskan gand parents.

apdst said:

Tell us how much has been spent on actual infrastructure projects--roads, bridges, etc.--and how much has been spent on BS like free money in Detroit, marsh mouses, deer under passes, turtle tunnels and the study of Alskan gand parents.

Click to expand...

More importantly how many long term vs short term jobs have been created.

EpicDude86 said:

I know there are some happy endangered frogs, some turtles, and a few artists that got stimulated.

Click to expand...

There's going to be plenty of waste in such a large bill.

But what is rather idiotic is claiming that the bill is entitlement/not infrastructure/not tax relief before looking that the percentages of where the money is going. Almost 51% is going towards tax relief and infrastructure.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009]American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I do think it's funny how anti-tax people are complaining about the stimulus bill without realizing that it has a hell of alot of tax relief built in.

obvious Child said:

There's going to be plenty of waste in such a large bill.

But what is rather idiotic is claiming that the bill is entitlement/not infrastructure/not tax relief before looking that the percentages of where the money is going. Almost 51% is going towards tax relief and infrastructure.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do think it's funny how anti-tax people are complaining about the stimulus bill without realizing that it has a hell of alot of tax relief built in.

Click to expand...

When it comes to legislation, I think you ought to read the actual bill not the wiki.

obvious Child said:

There's going to be plenty of waste in such a large bill.

But what is rather idiotic is claiming that the bill is entitlement/not infrastructure/not tax relief before looking that the percentages of where the money is going. Almost 51% is going towards tax relief and infrastructure.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do think it's funny how anti-tax people are complaining about the stimulus bill without realizing that it has a hell of alot of tax relief built in.

Click to expand...

it has tax relief for the welfare class. If it isn't for everyone, then it's nothing to get excited about. I don't qualify for any of that so called tax relief.

apdst said:

it has tax relief for the welfare class. If it isn't for everyone, then it's nothing to get excited about. I don't qualify for any of that so called tax relief.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any tax relief for students in the bill yet...is there anything??

EpicDude86 said:

I'm not seeing any tax relief for students in the bill yet...is there anything??

Click to expand...

It's a joke. The bill had no other purpose than to reward the Leftist base. This had nothing to do with taking care of America.