Budget Deficit for next year

[manimal]

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-budget-deficit,0,5715949.story

Federal budget deficit dropping 20 percent next year to 140B down 35B for this october YOY. While its still terrible at least were moving the right direction. I do take this news with little comfort since its still the 3rd highest ever.

Lets not forget receipts are down considerably...

 

[irishScott]

2 more times 'till it becomes a pattern, assuming it holds. Nicely coinciding with the election come to think of it.

 

[PeshakJang]

Lets not forget receipts are down considerably...

Not according to that story;

The decline in the October deficit compared with a year ago reflected a 7.9 percent rise in revenues, a gain that partly reflected higher payments by the Federal Reserve to the Treasury on its holdings.

 

[nick1985]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


yay!!!!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

That is for the month of October, not the overall year.

There are still 10 more months to unlock the cash box

 

[soccerballtux]

That is for the month of October, not the overall year.

There are still 10 more months to unlock the cash box

I can't believe we're almost at $14T already

 

[nick1985]

I can't believe we're almost at $14T already

Dont worry, Obama will cut the deficit.


lol

 

[Darwin333]

Not according to that story;

I am not sure that receipts going up due to increased payments from the Federal Reserve is necessarily a good thing... Frankly, isn't that just an accounting trick?

Can someone tell me if this is basically how it is working: The Feds print money and buy Treasury notes from the government. Then when it makes money off of the treasury notes, that it purchased from the treasury with printed money, the profits (which the treasury pays to the Feds or another entity purchases the bonds reducing the Feds holdings which seems like defeating the purpose of QE) are counted as "revenue" to the treasury?

 

[PeshakJang]

I am not sure that receipts going up due to increased payments from the Federal Reserve is necessarily a good thing... Frankly, isn't that just an accounting trick?

Can someone tell me if this is basically how it is working: The Feds print money and buy Treasury notes from the government. Then when it makes money off of the treasury notes, that it purchased from the treasury with printed money, the profits (which the treasury pays to the Feds or another entity purchases the bonds reducing the Feds holdings which seems like defeating the purpose of QE) are counted as "revenue" to the treasury?

Hey... you know........ just don't worry about it.... ok?

Put it in 'D' baby!

 

[manimal]

Ya I knew it was for fiscal month but forgot to change the title....thats what I get for posting at 3am...

 

[Scotteq]

Not according to that story;

The decline in the October deficit compared with a year ago reflected a 7.9 percent rise in revenues, a gain that partly reflected higher payments by the Federal Reserve to the Treasury on its holdings.

You do understand that when the Fed does that, the money doesn't actually come from anywhere. But rather the Fed basically 'Conjures' it into existence by making entries in their computers? ("Printing Money")

Knowledge of the precepts of classical central banking prepared no one to understand, much less to anticipate, the Fed's conduct in this credit crackup. The central bank is lending freely, all right, but not at the stipulated "high" interest rate. As a matter of fact, it is starting to lend at a rate below which there is no positive rate. The gold standard was objective. Modern monetary management is subjective (under Alan Greenspan, it was intuitive). The gold standard was rules-based. The 21st century Fed goes with what works -- or seems to work. What it hopes is going to work for the fellow who fell off the stepladder is more debt and more dollars. Just how much of each can be found every Thursday evening on the Fed's own Web site. Open up form H4.1 and prepare to be amazed. Since Labor Day, the Fed's assets have zoomed to $2.31 trillion from $905.7 billion. And what is the significance of this stunning rate of asset growth? Simply this: The Fed pays for its assets with freshly made dollars. It conjures them into existence on a computer; "printing" is a figure of speech.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html


Revenues are "Up" because the Fed printed them.

 

[nick1985]

You do understand that when the Fed does that, the money doesn't actually come from anywhere. But rather the Fed basically 'Conjures' it into existence by making entries in their computers? ("Printing Money")




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html


Revenues are "Up" because the Fed printed them.

Shut up. Do not question the fed. Now drink your kool-aid like a good boy.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


yay!!!!!

Stick a turbine on the debt clock and the whole damn country would have cheap green energy!

 

[manimal]

2/3 of the national debt came from the wars and from the bush tax cuts true or false?

 

[classy]

Dont worry, Obama will cut the deficit.


lol

Uh no, see the republicans are back in power on the money front.

 

[nick1985]

2/3 of the national debt came from the wars and from the bush tax cuts true or false?

I doubt the wars and the tax cuts cost the country 9.25 trillion dollars.

 

[nick1985]

Uh no, see the republicans are back in power on the money front.

Because they control 1 house of congress?

 

[classy]

Because they control 1 house of congress?

You do you know that spending bills are in the house, right?

 

[PeshakJang]

2/3 of the national debt came from the wars and from the bush tax cuts true or false?

False. What else?

 

[nick1985]

You do you know that spending bills are in the house, right?

You do know your pal Obama can veto them, right?

 

[IBMer]

2/3 of the national debt came from the wars and from the bush tax cuts true or false?

Its not just from the wars and bush tax cuts, but 2/3s of the debt is from the the republican presidents since and including Regan.

If you do look at that debt clock you posted, it went from like 5.6 trillion to 11 trillion while Bush was in office.

 

[nick1985]

Its not just from the wars and bush tax cuts, but 2/3s of the debt is from the the republican presidents since and including Regan.

If you do look at that debt clock you posted, it went from like 5.6 trillion to 11 trillion while Bush was in office.

From 2000 - 2008 the debt went from 5.6 to 10.5, a net gain of 4.9 trillion in 8 years. Certainly bad.

From 2008 - present the debt went from 10.5 to 13.7, a net gain of 3.2 in less than 3 years.


4.9 in 8 years....3.2 in 3 years. Bush was bad, Obama is much worse. At his current pace Obama will rack up roughly 8.5 trillion in 8 years vs. Bush's 4.9


*edit*

I give your attempt to spin an B+

 

[IBMer]

I absolutely agree. I am just tired of the one sidedness. If I ever try to bring that up with my teaparty friends they never admit to the debt almost doubling during the Bush years.

 

[nick1985]

I absolutely agree. I am just tired of the one sidedness. If I ever try to bring that up with my teaparty friends they never admit to the debt almost doubling during the Bush years.

Well it did, and the rate of growth is only getting worse. Obama through gas on a raging fire instead of water.

 

[dank69]

From 2000 - 2008 the debt went from 5.6 to 10.5, a net gain of 4.9 trillion in 8 years. Certainly bad.

From 2008 - present the debt went from 10.5 to 13.7, a net gain of 3.2 in less than 3 years.


4.9 in 8 years....3.2 in 3 years. Bush was bad, Obama is much worse. At his current pace Obama will rack up roughly 8.5 trillion in 8 years vs. Bush's 4.9


*edit*

I give your attempt to spin an B+

And 2/3 of that 3.2 was spent trying to fix the mess left by previous presidents.