• 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!

Budget deficit sets record in February

Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Budget deficit sets record in February

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP) – 17 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.

The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country three straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
Click to expand...

The Associated Press: Budget deficit sets record in February

3 years, $4T more debt.
How long did it take GWB to add $4T to the national debt?
7 years, 9 months --- almost his entire term.
But, the Obamanation will give Him a pass.
 
Last edited:
Perspective:

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.
Click to expand...
This is one-month figure is more than the deficits in each of FY2001, 2002 2007 and is almost as much as in 2006

The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
Click to expand...
This five-month figure is 42% greater than the highest FY deficit under GWB (FY2008, $458.5B)

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's $1.4 trillion total.
Click to expand...
This two-year figure exceeds the total budget deficts for the GWB administration.

But, the Obamanation will give Him a pass.
 
Goobieman said:
Perspective:


This is one-month figure is more than the deficits in each of FY2001, 2002 2007 and is almost as much as in 2006


This five-month figure is 42% greater than the highest FY deficit under GWB (FY2008, $458.5B)


This two-year figure exceeds the total budget deficts for the GWB administration.

But, the Obamanation will give Him a pass.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely horrible

The Obama admin should not have cut taxes, nor provided the stimulus to the economy.

It should cut the military and other programs to balance the budget
 
Okay it's time for me to come clean about my attacks on Obama's treatment of the economy.

Bush has no excuse because his college degree is in Business and Obama's only experience with economic reality was when the price of a happy meal confused hell out if him while he was coming down from a crack high.

Last week.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
It should cut the military and other programs to balance the budget
Click to expand...
Cutting defense spending to $0 would reduce the deficit by about 1/3.
Not until you cut entitlement spending will you achieve meaningful deficit reduction.
 
Goobieman said:
Cutting defense spending to $0 would reduce the deficit by about 1/3.
Not until you cut entitlement spending will you achieve meaningful deficit reduction.
Click to expand...

Notice I said "and other programs"


As Social Security is self funded it does not need to be touched


So overall with a deficit of 1.2 trillion (est) and expenses of 3.5 trillion for 2010

Each and every program excluding SS should be cut 38%

Including the military
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It is absolutely horrible

The Obama admin should not have cut taxes, nor provided the stimulus to the economy.

It should cut the military and other programs to balance the budget
Click to expand...

Providing for a national defense is required by the Constitution. What "other programs" did you have in mind?
 
Cut social security and medicare and you can actually have a balanced budget, and maybe even a decent government.
 
Moon said:
Providing for a national defense is required by the Constitution. What "other programs" did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

All programs outside of SS should be cut 38% for the 2010 year
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Cut social security and medicare and you can actually have a balanced budget, and maybe even a decent government.
Click to expand...

Social Security is self funded, you cut social security the government would not see the SS revenue, leaving the same budget deficit (actually a bigger one)
 
Taylor said:
If only that were the case.
Click to expand...

It is self funded, and has a surplus built up in the form of government bonds, it will have to be modified sometime soon to ensure future solvency, but currently it does not affect the normal operating budget of the US government in a negative way
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Notice I said "and other programs"
As Social Security is self funded it does not need to be touched
Click to expand...
Arguing that SocSec has its own funding is mere semantics - all of the money from every revenue source goes into and out of the general fund, and so every dollar that goes into the general fund is spent on every program that comes outog thegeneral fund.

But, I do applaud your idea to cut -every- program.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Social Security is self funded, you cut social security the government would not see the SS revenue
Click to expand...
Not so. The level of taxation for SocSec is not related to the leivel of SocSec spending, and vice-versa -- that is, you can cut the latter and leave the former.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It is self funded, and has a surplus built up in the form of government bonds, it will have to be modified sometime soon to ensure future solvency, but currently it does not affect the normal operating budget of the US government in a negative way
Click to expand...
There is no surplus. The govenment issues the bonds to itself. They are worthless. The "surplus" was used to grow government.
 
Goobieman said:
Not so. The level of taxation for SocSec is not related to the leivel of SocSec spending, and vice-versa -- that is, you can cut the latter and leave the former.
Click to expand...

Are not Social Security deductions done separately on a person's paycheck from income tax deductions in the US?

In Canada CPP (our Social Security) is taxed separately from income tax.

Which would mean you cut Social Security, you cut that tax. (unless you increase taxes afterward)
 
Taylor said:
There is no surplus. The govenment issues the bonds to itself. They are worthless. The "surplus" was used to grow government.
Click to expand...

Are government bonds worthless? Is the trillion dollars of US government debt the Chinese own worthless, how about the trillion or so the Japanese own worthless, or the hundreds of billions of US government debt various Americans own?

The money owed to the SS fund is worthless only if all other forms of US government debt is worthless.

And if so, I would move out of the US of A right freakin now as Wiemar Germany is right around the corner
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Are not Social Security deductions done separately on a person's paycheck from income tax deductions in the US?
Click to expand...
Yes. So? Its just a tax, like any other.

There is a seperate accoutning for SocSec taxes and disbursements on Federal balance sheets, but all of the revenue goes into and comes out of the general fund, just like any other spending program and any other form of taxation.

Which would mean you cut Social Security, you cut that tax.
Click to expand...
No. There's absolutely no mechanism that requires this.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Are government bonds worthless? Is the trillion dollars of US government debt the Chinese own worthless, how about the trillion or so the Japanese own worthless, or the hundreds of billions of US government debt various Americans own?

The money owed to the SS fund is worthless only if all other forms of US government debt is worthless.
Click to expand...
This is not so. The SS IOUs are an accounting mechanism. For whatever reaos, the government feels the need to let people think it owes itself money. The external bonds sold to others (people or countries) are a different matter entirely.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. So? Its just a tax, like any other.

There is a seperate accoutning for SocSec taxes and disbursements on Federal balance sheets, but all of the revenue goes into and comes out of the general fund, just like any other spending program and any other form of taxation.


No. There's absolutely no mechanism that requires this.
Click to expand...

So you are being taxed for Social Security, money that goes for Social Security, the surplus of which is used to purchase US government debt.

You end Social Security, you no longer are going to be taxed to fund Social Security. No more Social Security revenue. No revenue for the government.

Meaning a new and different tax other then SS
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So you are being taxed for Social Security, money that goes for Social Security, the surplus of which is used to purchase US government debt.

You end Social Security, you no longer are going to be taxed to fund Social Security. No more Social Security revenue. No revenue for the government.

Meaning a new and different tax other then SS
Click to expand...

The bonds used with SS are non marketable.
They are just used to mark how much the government owes itself.

They are essentially worthless and can only be used to determine how much additional taxes will be needed to fully fund the program in the future.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The bonds used with SS are non marketable.
They are just used to mark how much the government owes itself.

They are essentially worthless and can only be used to determine how much additional taxes will be needed to fully fund the program in the future.
Click to expand...

They indicate how much the Federal Government owes Social Security, they pay a low interest rate, and can not be traded, but if they are worthless then all US government debt is worthless
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They indicate how much the Federal Government owes Social Security, they pay a low interest rate, and can not be traded, but if they are worthless then all US government debt is worthless
Click to expand...

Not exactly true.

This particular debt is not the kind that is traded in the open market and they can adjust what is owed at anytime they want.

They other, marketable, securities have a much greater effect on the countries credit rating than these do.
If the government cut benefits tomorrow it would be reneging(partially) on their debt owed but it wouldn't necessarily reflect poorly on the countries credit rating.

Edit: In theory, it can have an effect but if they balanced the budget by cutting SS payouts, that would probably raise the countries credit rating.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
They indicate how much the Federal Government owes Social Security, they pay a low interest rate, and can not be traded...
Click to expand...
Yes. An accountng mechanism to show where the money for the outlays came from. Nothing more.

but if they are worthless then all US government debt is worthless
Click to expand...
No more so than your mortgage is worthless because you decided you were't going to put that $20 back in your wife's purse.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
You end Social Security, you no longer are going to be taxed to fund Social Security
Click to expand...
Thats only if you repeal the outlays AND the tax.
Reducing or even eliminating the outlays, as we are duscussing, in no way necessitates eliminating the tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom