Current US Federal Budget Deficit

washunut · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
LOL, that's some world class cherry picking right there! You left out the part where Bush II inherited a surplus of $128B budget then after two tax cuts the deficit went to that $413, a swing of $540B to the negative, and even at the top of the biggest bubble in generations we still ran deficits. And of course revenues during a bubble are unsustainable and so collapsed when the bubble did.

While the above is true, the last part is especially ironic. Seems you forget that the surplus mentioned came about due to the internet bubble which was about to bust. Not to mention the failure to kill OBL BEFORE 9/11!

gdgyva · May 20, 2019

Media_Truth said:
Republicans set the table for debt. Like the Bush/Cheney worst recession since the Great Depression. Your dishonesty is staggering. REPUBLICANS = HIGHER DEFICITS!!!

i guess we will see when Pelosi gives Trump her budget this year...wont we?

wanna bet how much over budget she is on her budget?

or will they even submit a budget?

LMAO

Perotista · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
OK, so it's fair to give credit to Democrats for the tax cuts in 1981, and the economy that followed because Democrats controlled the House, and Reagan was just along for the ride. I'm good with that. What's a bit dishonest is giving Reagan all the glory, and blaming Democrats for the deficits. Same thing with Bush II. He and the GOP get all the political credit for the tax cuts and the bubble economy, and then we are blaming Democrats for the collapse in revenue and explosion in non-discretionary and discretionary spending to deal with the financial collapse and Great Recession on Bush's watch.

It was a two party affair. I can't help that a vast majority of the people will always give any president the credit for a good economy and the blame for the bad. For most, congress doesn't exist. No thought is given to actually who has control of the congress, especially the House. If the Democratic controlled House hadn't written and then passed the Reagan tax cuts, then they wouldn't have taken place.

In most instances it takes two to tango.

JasperL · May 20, 2019

washunut said:
While the above is true, the last part is especially ironic. Seems you forget that the surplus mentioned came about due to the internet bubble which was about to bust. Not to mention the failure to kill OBL BEFORE 9/11!

That's true in part but the difference is this - at the top of the FAR smaller 'internet' bubble, the budget SURPLUS was (in 2012 dollars) about $315 billion. At the top of the Bush bubble (far bigger, and the collapse of which was the Worldwide Great Recession), we still ran a deficit of $177 billion. The difference is almost $500 billion.

That's what's supposed to happen - at the peak of a bubble, budget surpluses should be expected. Similarly, at the end of a years long expansion like we're experiencing now, we'd expect deficits to be at decade lows, but that isn't happening in large part because although spending is rocking along at 20-21% of GDP like it has for most of recent decades, including during the Reagan era, the Trump and GOP tax cuts are projected to drive receipts, in an economic boom period, to only about 16-16.5% of GDP. WHEN we have the next recession, spending will increase above 21% of GDP and receipts will fall below 16%.

washunut · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
That's true in part but the difference is this - at the top of the FAR smaller 'internet' bubble, the budget SURPLUS was (in 2012 dollars) about $315 billion. At the top of the Bush bubble (far bigger, and the collapse of which was the Worldwide Great Recession), we still ran a deficit of $177 billion. The difference is almost $500 billion.

That's what's supposed to happen - at the peak of a bubble, budget surpluses should be expected. Similarly, at the end of a years long expansion like we're experiencing now, we'd expect deficits to be at decade lows, but that isn't happening in large part because although spending is rocking along at 20-21% of GDP like it has for most of recent decades, including during the Reagan era, the Trump and GOP tax cuts are projected to drive receipts, in an economic boom period, to only about 16-16.5% of GDP. WHEN we have the next recession, spending will increase above 21% of GDP and receipts will fall below 16%.

Can't say I disagree with any of what you posted. Nice job!

jonny5 · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
LOL, that's some world class cherry picking right there! You left out the part where Bush II inherited a surplus of $128B budget then after two tax cuts the deficit went to that $413, a swing of $540B to the negative, and even at the top of the biggest bubble in generations we still ran deficits. And of course revenues during a bubble are unsustainable and so collapsed when the bubble did.

Just picking the same cherrys as the post I responded to, claiming that Clinton and Obama had any major part in deficit reduction. Obama signed off on 1.5 trillion in debt, and was forced by the Republicans into the sequester. Clinton submitted budgets with large deficits until Republicans forced him into accepting cuts in spending growth.

The only pattern here is that deficits go down when Republicans control the budget and have a democratic spender in the white house to oppose.

Even Trumps budget reduces the deficit by 500%, but with democrats in control of the budget, I dont know what we'll get.

jonny5 · May 20, 2019

gdgyva said:
i guess we will see when Pelosi gives Trump her budget this year...wont we?

wanna bet how much over budget she is on her budget?

or will they even submit a budget?

LMAO

The house budget committee passed a budget. It increases spending.

JasperL · May 20, 2019

jonny5 said:
Just picking the same cherrys as the post I responded to, claiming that Clinton and Obama had any major part in deficit reduction. Obama signed off on 1.5 trillion in debt, and was forced by the Republicans into the sequester. Clinton submitted budgets with large deficits until Republicans forced him into accepting cuts in spending growth.

That's not quite true. Here's the Heritage Foundation whining about Clinton's first budget, which claimed about $500 billion deficit reductions over the Bush era trend line. The big part of that was tax increases, which of course passed with no GOP votes.

Bottom line is the Clinton people really did want to reduce deficits and that happened. If you want to give an assist to the GOP, that's fine, I agree.

That clearly was NOT a priority of Obama, in large part because we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression. I know we're supposed to ignore that little detail, but it's pretty important in the big picture.

The only pattern here is that deficits go down when Republicans control the budget and have a democratic spender in the white house to oppose.

And when the GOP has the Congress and WH, deficits go way up - see Bush II and Trump. That's also a pattern - BIG tax cuts and increases in spending.

Even Trumps budget reduces the deficit by 500%, but with democrats in control of the budget, I dont know what we'll get.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying - the deficits cannot come down by 500% - do you mean 80%? And most of that is from huge cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, which aren't happening, with the big reductions happening, of course, after he's out of office. It's not a serious budget proposal.

Media_Truth · May 20, 2019

gdgyva said:
i guess we will see when Pelosi gives Trump her budget this year...wont we?

wanna bet how much over budget she is on her budget?

or will they even submit a budget?

LMAO

Why should Trump have to rely on Pelosi? He had the House and the Senate for two years, and did nothing but skyrocket the deficit.

Media_Truth · May 20, 2019

jasperl said:
that's not quite true. here's the heritage foundation whining about clinton's first budget, which claimed about $500 billion deficit reductions over the bush era trend line. The big part of that was tax increases, which of course passed with no gop votes.

Bottom line is the clinton people really did want to reduce deficits and that happened. If you want to give an assist to the gop, that's fine, i agree.

yes!

jasperl said:
that clearly was not a priority of obama, in large part because we were in the worst recession since the great depression. I know we're supposed to ignore that little detail, but it's pretty important in the big picture.

double yes!!!

jasperl said:
and when the gop has the congress and wh, deficits go way up - see bush ii and trump. That's also a pattern - big tax cuts and increases in spending.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying - the deficits cannot come down by 500% - do you mean 80%? And most of that is from huge cuts to medicare and medicaid, which aren't happening, with the big reductions happening, of course, after he's out of office. It's not a serious budget proposal.

triple yes!!!

JasperL · May 20, 2019

Media_Truth said:
Why should Trump have to rely on Pelosi? He had the House and the Senate for two years, and did nothing but skyrocket the deficit.

What Pelosi is supposed to do, I think, is submit an austere budget with huge spending cuts to the military, SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and massive tax increases (which is the only way to submit anything close to balanced) which is DOA in the Senate but will form the basis for non-stop GOP attacks in the 2020 elections about killing grandma and all the rest.

It's a reasonable request, don't you think?

More seriously, we have spent around 20-22% of GDP for decades, including during the Reagan era. It's tough to go below that given the baby boomer generation is still working through to SS and Medicare and will put upward pressure on spending for the foreseeable future even if we don't have a recession, or war with Iran. So the only way to really solve our deficit problem is with higher taxes, and the GOP won't cooperate, and if Democrats do it, they will get killed politically. We've seen the movie.

The Reagan era is the golden era for the GOP and he ran deficits of about 5% of GDP for 4 or 5 years, got reelected in a landslide, in part because huge deficits boost the economy, and that's been the model ever since. Cut taxes, increase spending, deficits boost the economy and everyone loves paying less in taxes, no one cares about the deficit - win elections!

gdgyva · May 20, 2019

jonny5 said:
The house budget committee passed a budget. It increases spending.

so i see

In lieu of a budget resolution, the House Budget Committee has put forward a bill to increase discretionary spending caps by $358 billion over the next two years. Not only would this increase be twice as expensive as eliminating the discretionary sequester and bring base discretionary spending to record levels (on an inflation-adjusted basis), but it would expand deficits by roughly $2 trillion over the next decade.

After a 16 percent spending increase over the past two years, current law calls for a 10 percent drop in discretionary spending between 2019 and 2020. The Investing for the People Act of 2019 would instead increase spending by another 7 percent over the next two years, at a cost of $177 billion in 2020 and $181 billion in 2021 (this excludes adjustments for Census funding and IRS enforcement). This plan would lift discretionary spending to record levels on an inflation-adjusted basis, roughly in line with the 2010 level that both parties considered too high.

Because current law caps expire after 2021, this spending deal would actually increase projected deficits by far more than the $358 billion sticker price. Under current scoring convention, uncapped spending is assumed to continue growing with inflation. This cap deal would thus increase spending by roughly $2 trillion over the next decade.

Proposed Budget Plan Would Cost Over $2 Trillion | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

but, but, TRUMP!!!!

jonny5 · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
That's not quite true. Here's the Heritage Foundation whining about Clinton's first budget, which claimed about $500 billion deficit reductions over the Bush era trend line. The big part of that was tax increases, which of course passed with no GOP votes.

Bottom line is the Clinton people really did want to reduce deficits and that happened. If you want to give an assist to the GOP, that's fine, I agree.

If he really wanted to see it happen, then it would have happened. It wasnt until the GOP took over congress and forced actual spending cuts, that the deficit actually came down. And if we're remembering details, then we should probably talk about the dotcom bubble, the near recession in 2001 and 911.

As you say though when either party controls all govt, we get spending, and thus deficits.

jonny5 · May 20, 2019

gdgyva said:
so i see

In lieu of a budget resolution, the House Budget Committee has put forward a bill to increase discretionary spending caps by $358 billion over the next two years. Not only would this increase be twice as expensive as eliminating the discretionary sequester and bring base discretionary spending to record levels (on an inflation-adjusted basis), but it would expand deficits by roughly $2 trillion over the next decade.

After a 16 percent spending increase over the past two years, current law calls for a 10 percent drop in discretionary spending between 2019 and 2020. The Investing for the People Act of 2019 would instead increase spending by another 7 percent over the next two years, at a cost of $177 billion in 2020 and $181 billion in 2021 (this excludes adjustments for Census funding and IRS enforcement). This plan would lift discretionary spending to record levels on an inflation-adjusted basis, roughly in line with the 2010 level that both parties considered too high.

Because current law caps expire after 2021, this spending deal would actually increase projected deficits by far more than the $358 billion sticker price. Under current scoring convention, uncapped spending is assumed to continue growing with inflation. This cap deal would thus increase spending by roughly $2 trillion over the next decade.

Proposed Budget Plan Would Cost Over $2 Trillion | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

but, but, TRUMP!!!!

We could hope that since hes different he'll fight them, but I dont see any evidence of fiscal responsibility in Trump. Certainly not in the current Democrats.

JasperL · May 20, 2019

jonny5 said:
If he really wanted to see it happen, then it would have happened. It wasnt until the GOP took over congress and forced actual spending cuts, that the deficit actually came down. And if we're remembering details, then we should probably talk about the dotcom bubble, the near recession in 2001 and 911.

As you say though when either party controls all govt, we get spending, and thus deficits.

OK, let's roll the tape. Deficits in 2012 dollars from 1992-2001

1992 -454.1
1993 -387.5
1994 -303.4
1995 -237.7
1996 -152.6
1997 -30.4
1998 95.5
1999 171.2
2000 315
2001 166.1

So deficits came down every year. So what caused the deficits to come down? Mostly revenue increases:

1,706.9 2,161.0 -454.1
1,753.8 2,141.3 -387.5
1,879.0 2,182.4 -303.4
1,960.0 2,197.7 -237.7
2,063.4 2,216.0 -152.6
2,196.4 2,226.9 -30.4
2,374.8 2,279.3 95.5
2,490.1 2,318.9 171.2
2,691.3 2,377.3 315
2,578.5 2,412.4 166.1

That middle column is spending (in 2012 dollars, first row is 1992 or the last Bush year) and you can see the spending restraint started before the GOP took over in January 1995.

I don't quite get it. You quote me giving the GOP partial credit, which is fair enough. Would it kill you to recognize that Clinton was legitimately interested in reducing the deficit, if nothing else because it just.....happened, and every step along they way he was on board with it.

It's also interesting that every time you guys talk about the Clinton years, you focus on the spending, and yet it's the revenue boom that did the heavy lifting for deficit reduction, and that was in part fueled with higher tax rates, including payroll taxes.

Bottom line is here's the total increase in inflation adjusted revenues by President, and I cut Bush II off at the peak in 2007, so giving him the MAXIMUM benefit of the debt and housing bubble. I also handicapped Obama by measuring it from the PEAK Bush II year of 2007 through 2017. If I started with 2009, that Obama line would read 40%

Reagan - 19%
Bush I - 1%
Clinton - 47%
Bush II - 9%
Obama - 11% (40%)

There's no secret about how our budget works. In good years, revenue should in fact outpace growth, or at least keep pace, because spending does. But every time the GOP cuts taxes, we see revenue growth slow to a trickle (and before you mention Reagan, he raised taxes every year post 1981), spending keeps pace with inflation and economic growth, and deficits go UP. Clinton raised rates, revenues exploded. Bush cut them and even through the biggest bubble in generations we saw about 1/5th the revenue growth under Clinton. Etc....

[BTW, I messed up the Obama line, and corrected it. Used nominal when I meant to use inflation adjusted. It's correct now. ]

JasperL · May 20, 2019

jonny5 said:
If he really wanted to see it happen, then it would have happened. It wasnt until the GOP took over congress and forced actual spending cuts, that the deficit actually came down. And if we're remembering details, then we should probably talk about the dotcom bubble, the near recession in 2001 and 911.

As you say though when either party controls all govt, we get spending, and thus deficits.

I'll address that last comment separately, because it's false. We did NOT see "spending and thus deficits" with Clinton. Just didn't happen.

It's tough to analyze the Obama years because the Great Recession messes everything up - revenues cratered, and spending skyrocketed, and both would happen with no change in discretionary spending by Congress. Most of that (other than the $800b in stimulus) was just what happens in depression/serious once in a lifetime recession.

JasperL · May 20, 2019

jonny5 said:
We could hope that since hes different he'll fight them, but I dont see any evidence of fiscal responsibility in Trump. Certainly not in the current Democrats.

Or current Republicans who when in power cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and busted the spending caps in the 2018 election year.

Conservative · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
OK, let's roll the tape. Deficits in 2012 dollars from 1992-2001

1992 -454.1
1993 -387.5
1994 -303.4
1995 -237.7
1996 -152.6
1997 -30.4
1998 95.5
1999 171.2
2000 315
2001 166.1

So deficits came down every year. So what caused the deficits to come down? Mostly revenue increases:

1,706.9 2,161.0 -454.1
1,753.8 2,141.3 -387.5
1,879.0 2,182.4 -303.4
1,960.0 2,197.7 -237.7
2,063.4 2,216.0 -152.6
2,196.4 2,226.9 -30.4
2,374.8 2,279.3 95.5
2,490.1 2,318.9 171.2
2,691.3 2,377.3 315
2,578.5 2,412.4 166.1

That middle column is spending (in 2012 dollars, first row is 1992 or the last Bush year) and you can see the spending restraint started before the GOP took over in January 1995.

I don't quite get it. You quote me giving the GOP partial credit, which is fair enough. Would it kill you to recognize that Clinton was legitimately interested in reducing the deficit, if nothing else because it just.....happened, and every step along they way he was on board with it.

It's also interesting that every time you guys talk about the Clinton years, you focus on the spending, and yet it's the revenue boom that did the heavy lifting for deficit reduction, and that was in part fueled with higher tax rates, including payroll taxes.

Bottom line is here's the total increase in inflation adjusted revenues by President, and I cut Bush II off at the peak in 2007, so giving him the MAXIMUM benefit of the debt and housing bubble. I also handicapped Obama by measuring it from the PEAK Bush II year of 2007 through 2017. If I started with 2009, that Obama line would read 40%

Reagan - 19%
Bush I - 1%
Clinton - 47%
Bush II - 9%
Obama - 11% (40%)

There's no secret about how our budget works. In good years, revenue should in fact outpace growth, or at least keep pace, because spending does. But every time the GOP cuts taxes, we see revenue growth slow to a trickle (and before you mention Reagan, he raised taxes every year post 1981), spending keeps pace with inflation and economic growth, and deficits go UP. Clinton raised rates, revenues exploded. Bush cut them and even through the biggest bubble in generations we saw about 1/5th the revenue growth under Clinton. Etc....

[BTW, I messed up the Obama line, and corrected it. Used nominal when I meant to use inflation adjusted. It's correct now. ]

Let's face it and here it the real problem with the Trump tax cuts, the cap put on state and local taxes being deducted from the federal tax returns and certainly not the 44% of income earners not paying any Federal Income Taxes. We need to jack those taxes up on the rich, don't we?

Please tell me the last time spending on social programs was cut because of tax cuts? Also can you explain how 7 interest rate hikes since January 2017 impacted the Federal Deficits? Or how about the mandatory entitlement spending increases?

Before you put Obama on Mt. Rushmore,, you might want to do some research and let us all know how someone who authored the worst recovery from a recession in U.S. history deserves credit for lowering the deficit yet adding 9.3 trillion to the debt?

MTAtech · May 20, 2019

jonny5 said:
If he really wanted to see it happen, then it would have happened. It wasnt until the GOP took over congress and forced actual spending cuts, that the deficit actually came down. And if we're remembering details, then we should probably talk about the dotcom bubble, the near recession in 2001 and 911.

As you say though when either party controls all govt, we get spending, and thus deficits.

You claimed "it wasn't until the GOP took over congress and forced actual spending cuts, that the deficit actually came down." When was that, exactly? The GOP controlled the House from 1994 to 2006. Spending only rose during that time. Spending did come down slightly for three years, starting in 2011. The deficit, however, dropped by 75%, because revenue increased: partly from the economic expansion, that Republicans now deny happened, and because of Obama getting parts of the Bush tax-cuts to expire. As you can see below, revenues increased by nearly 50% from 2010 to 2015. It wasn't spending cuts, it was revenue that drove the deficit down.

...

JasperL · May 20, 2019

Conservative said:
Let's face it and here it the real problem with the Trump tax cuts, the cap put on state and local taxes being deducted from the federal tax returns and certainly not the 44% of income earners not paying any Federal Income Taxes. We need to jack those taxes up on the rich, don't we?

Please tell me the last time spending on social programs was cut because of tax cuts? Also can you explain how 7 interest rate hikes since January 2017 impacted the Federal Deficits? Or how about the mandatory entitlement spending increases?

Before you put Obama on Mt. Rushmore,, you might want to do some research and let us all know how someone who authored the worst recovery from a recession in U.S. history deserves credit for lowering the deficit yet adding 9.3 trillion to the debt?

You're hilarious sometimes. It's like you've got some random talking points and just throw them out there without regard to what the discussion is or anything else. Not one word of that addresses anything in the comment you quoted, which is pretty amazing given that I covered most of the post 1980 era!

jonny5 · May 20, 2019

MTAtech said:
You claimed "it wasn't until the GOP took over congress and forced actual spending cuts, that the deficit actually came down." When was that, exactly? The GOP controlled the House from 1994 to 2006. Spending only rose during that time. Spending did come down slightly for three years, starting in 2011. The deficit, however, dropped by 75%, because revenue increased: partly from the economic expansion, that Republicans now deny happened, and because of Obama getting parts of the Bush tax-cuts to expire. As you can see below, revenues increased by nearly 50% from 2010 to 2015. It wasn't spending cuts, it was revenue that drove the deficit down.

...

We're talking about the 90s. And as your first chart shows spending slowed down after GOP took over in 95, and the shut down led to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. A similar thing happend in 2012. GOP took congress and forced the sequestor on Obama.

jonny5 · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
Or current Republicans who when in power cut taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and busted the spending caps in the 2018 election year.

Taxes are up so thats irrelevant. Current Republicans are not in control of the budget, but without a democrat in the whitehouse, they would likely be overspending, even if not as much as Dems do when unopposed.

JasperL · May 20, 2019

jonny5 said:
Taxes are up so thats irrelevant. Current Republicans are not in control of the budget, but without a democrat in the whitehouse, they would likely be overspending, even if not as much as Dems do when unopposed.

That's false - taxes are not "up." Inflation adjusted they are DOWN. Nominal, they've barely budged, way below inflation, way below GDP growth, and approximately $1.1 trillion - $1.5 trillion less than baseline revenues without the TCJA. That's a guarantee for future deficits because the big drivers of spending all increase at least with inflation - military, Medicare, Medicaid and SS. If revenues do not keep pace, and they are not because of the tax cuts, that means deficits go UP, which they have.

And we don't have to guess about GOP priorities, they showed us. Two years in charge, they busted the spending caps, cut taxes, deficit up, even at full employment. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won [the election. More tax cuts] is our due." That's the GOP!

Conservative · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
You're hilarious sometimes. It's like you've got some random talking points and just throw them out there without regard to what the discussion is or anything else. Not one word of that addresses anything in the comment you quoted, which is pretty amazing given that I covered most of the post 1980 era!

Maybe if English was your first language you would understand my post again to someone like you who is so anti Trump and yet so ignorant of the budget that nothing ever will make sense to you. Figure out how much of the budget deficit was due to items beyond Trump's control and get back to us. That would however require you to be open to being wrong when you charge Trump and Republicans solely with deficit increases

Conservative · May 20, 2019

JasperL said:
That's false - taxes are not "up." Inflation adjusted they are DOWN. Nominal, they've barely budged, way below inflation, way below GDP growth, and approximately $1.1 trillion - $1.5 trillion less than baseline revenues without the TCJA. That's a guarantee for future deficits because the big drivers of spending all increase at least with inflation - military, Medicare, Medicaid and SS. If revenues do not keep pace, and they are not because of the tax cuts, that means deficits go UP, which they have.

And we don't have to guess about GOP priorities, they showed us. Two years in charge, they busted the spending caps, cut taxes, deficit up, even at full employment. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won [the election. More tax cuts] is our due." That's the GOP!

Why is it so important for federal revenue to grow? Seems that federal revenue will indeed grow as states with high state and local taxes are having theirs capped at 10k thus meaning more revenue to the federal gov't. By the way April had a budget surplus! what do you think the growing GDP and 263,000 new taxpayers are going to do to the deficit?