• 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!

US Posts Smallest Annual Deficit Since 2007 (1 Viewer)

Bush is not president and thank god. Nice try at deflection though when you have no real answer. Going in debt 1/2 trillion dollars is not a success. If you add in the interest on the debt then what are your numbers. If and when the budget is actually balanced including paying that years interest on the national debt then you and I can pat ourselves on the back.

And here I was hoping for some help understanding how a reduction in yearly deficits by a trillion dollars works out to be an "epic failure"....

What would you call it if they were still at 1.5 trillion a year? A super epic failure?
 
Some bright light of the republitarian variety suggests that budget deficits are just the difference between what Congress planned to spend (I think he meant "budgeted") and what was actually spent. I guess that would be the kind of explanation you'd give a 3rd grader but it's pretty simplistic (this "light" also ridiculed people for not knowing the difference between debt and deficits but didn't provide his own interpretation which was disappointing). In fact, the deficits (or surpluses such as the four we had from FY1998 through FY2001) are actually factored in when Congress passes its budgets. I've copied a few lines from one of the many fine charts that Christopher Chantrill at usgovernmentspending.com (Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker so no liberal, he). These numbers may not line up well as they come from a chart:


FY2011(est) FY2012(est) FY2013(est) FY2014(est) FY2015(est) FY2016(est) 2015 ACTUAL
+] Total Spending: 4,385.5 4,189.8 4,059.9 3,908.2 3,901.0 3,758.6 3,687.6
[+] Federal Deficit 751.9 606.7 609.7 576.5 563.6 582.5 438.9
[+] Gross Public Debt 18,917.2 19,775.5 19,426.5 19,147.8 18,713.5 18,627.6 18,117.9

So, the first thing to note is that when Congress passes these budgets they are knowingly spending more than they expect revenues to cover. The next thing to note is the disconnect between the estimated deficits/debt to the actual 2015 amount for each, especially for the debt. Note that debt in 2012 it was actually estimated to hit nearly $19.8T but it never got that high. In fact, in just the last year the estimated debt for FY2015 had been $18.7T but came in at a much lower $18.1T. For 2015 the budget estimate was for $3.9T (see above) spending and $3.25T revenue. Revenue came in almost exactly that but spending amounted to only $3.69T or $210B less than estimated. The actual deficit was $125B below estimate. I'm not sure what accounts for that $85B difference in those last two numbers.

So the annual deficit (surplus) is the actual difference between government revenue and government spending. It can often be quite different from what Congress planned and, fortunately, the deficits have been coming in well below estimates. In fact, I ran across an interesting tidbit for next year's estimated GDP as it relates to our current debt level. GDP 2016 is expected to hit $18.8T** while out current debt has been holding steadily (actually slightly dropping) below $18.2T. If this holds up, next year will be the first year since 2012 that the debt will be below 100% GDP. Of course, that would all fall apart if republicans regain control of the presidency and hold Congress. There'll be wars everywehre and huge unfunded military spending and we'll be right back into that deep downward fiscal and economic spiral that they always create and leave for a democrat to clean up.




* http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget
** Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2016 - Charts

So then the solution is to have a Republican congress and a democrat President. Hows that square with your dogma?
 
And here I was hoping for some help understanding how a reduction in yearly deficits by a trillion dollars works out to be an "epic failure"....

What would you call it if they were still at 1.5 trillion a year? A super epic failure?

Because they didnt actually do anything to reduce the deficit except wait for revenue to come back up naturally. They still havent balanced the budget, or even planned to balance it. They havent dealt with out of control mandatory spending, or even reduced defense spending.
 
No Progressive initaives like redsitrubiton and tax increases on " the Rich ", on Corporations and Capital lead to income inequality.

Progressive " solutions " like Stimulus and Policies that pretend to address AGW also lead to income inequality

Progressive / Socialist rhetoric and the appeal to the morons of the base of the Democrat party also lead to income inequality.

When Hollande in France increased the tax rate on the " Rich " to 75% did it fix " inequality " ?

Did Obama's tax increase on Capital Gains fox inequality ? Did the ACA fix unequality ?

Notes from the upside-down, inside-out republitarian world. Wouldn't be nice if all we had to do to make things happen is make things up like that? Your commitment to ideologic cant over facts is well known. Also, too, I like how you pretend someone promised instantaneous results from tax changes. Raising taxes on the wealthy is only half the equation. The other half is lowering them on the middle class. What's done with the extra revenues also matters. If they're used to make education a debt-free matter for middle class (and lower) kids, that will definitely reduce the disparity in wealth and income over time. And where did you get the notion that the ACA was going to "fix" wealth disparity? That's a fresh one. Anyway, as always, thanks for the comedic relief.
 
Because they didnt actually do anything to reduce the deficit except wait for revenue to come back up naturally.

I put the long form of this up just a while ago but here's the short version: federal spending last year (FY2015) came in $210B under budget while revenues came in right on target. The result was an actual deficit that was $125B less than what was estimated in the FY2015 budget. So, basically, you're absolutely wrong about why there was a lower deficit than budgeted in this past FY.
 
I put the long form of this up just a while ago but here's the short version: federal spending last year (FY2015) came in $210B under budget while revenues came in right on target. The result was an actual deficit that was $125B less than what was estimated in the FY2015 budget. So, basically, you're absolutely wrong about why there was a lower deficit than budgeted in this past FY.

Whats budgeted doesnt matter. They havent passed a full appropriation bill in years. Thus they arent following a budget. Meanwhile if you look at reality youll see that the deficit reduction was entirely due to revenue increases, since spending stayed flat. Notice the flat line on spending, while revenue recovers.

Receipts-and-Outlays.jpg
 
Progressive taxation empirically reduces inequality.

Lol ! Yes, by perpetuating dependence and trading success for mediocrity.

Doing away with the Middle class is one hell of a way of making people equal.
 
And here I was hoping for some help understanding how a reduction in yearly deficits by a trillion dollars works out to be an "epic failure"....

What would you call it if they were still at 1.5 trillion a year? A super epic failure?

We still went in debt by roughly 1/2 trillion dollars. That is roughly $5,000.00 that the 100,000,000 taxpayers still owes to square the books for 2015.

Then there is the 200 billion dollar interest on the 18.2 trillion dollars debt that we have not paid. Another $2000.00 we owe.

Then there is the 18.2 trillion we owe that will be higher next year. What another $57,000.00 we owe.

Yea epic failure is the right word for 2015.

I am not sure Super Epic Failure is strong enough for the previous years.
 
Whats budgeted doesnt matter. They havent passed a full appropriation bill in years. Thus they arent following a budget. Meanwhile if you look at reality youll see that the deficit reduction was entirely due to revenue increases, since spending stayed flat. Notice the flat line on spending, while revenue recovers.

View attachment 67191696

You put up a graph and don't even know how to read it? See how the red spending line flattens out after 2009? No? Can't see that? Can't see how that doesn't happen at any other previous time on that spending line, either?
 
You put up a graph and don't even know how to read it? See how the red spending line flattens out after 2009? No? Can't see that? Can't see how that doesn't happen at any other previous time on that spending line, either?

Thats literally what I said in the post you just quoted:

deficit reduction was entirely due to revenue increases, since spending stayed flat.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom