Treasury Department - $54 billion Surplus

[ECUHITMAN]

Oh and here is what the White House is saying about the 2006 budget:

Because of this increased spending restraint, deficits are below what they otherwise would have been. Last year?s Budget projected a deficit of 4.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004, or $521 billion . The President set out to cut that deficit in half by 2009. Largely because economic growth generated stronger revenues than originally estimated, and because the Congress adhered to the spending restraint called for in the President?s Budget, the 2004 deficit came in $109 billion lower than originally estimated . At 3.6 percent of GDP, the actual 2004 deficit, while still too large , was well within historical range and only the 10th biggest deficit in the last 25 years.

Link

Humm, no mention of a surplus (true or otherwise) anywhere in there. Does that mean even your beloved leader does not know we had a surplus? Because I would think that the white house would want to use a buzz word like surplus, but nope they didn't. Because if they had, they would have been wrong, just like you are.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Any moron can get a $50B increase in revenue from a $500B deficit... it takes a non-moron to recognize that, however.

Trickle down works? sure, only in the context of massive deficits... Borrow $100 out of my left pocket, burn $80, put $20 in my right pocket, pay $5 interest to my left pocket, and look, my right pocket is making money! Do that over and over again, see what you've got...

Actually the Trickle Down theory does NOT involve massive deficits at all. In fact it's best understood in the context of a government that *doesn't* go out of its way to spend 2 trillion dollars a friggin' year trying to please every goddamn gerbil that walks by. It's ONLY appropriate if your government has adequate controls in place to PREVENT the politicians from spending like there's no tomorrow.

Obviously neither Democrats nor Republicans have figured out the meaning of the word "restraint".

Jason

Bingo.

CsG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
So with that "surplus" what is the outcome of FY2004? NEGATIVE $370BILLION??!!

What will it be next year? NEGATIVE $300BILLION if lucky?!

Nice surplus irwincur...I sure as hell hope you don't live like the government...no matter how many "surpluses" you have, spending more than you receive isn't going to get you far 😛

The article was talking about the current quarter, and for this quarter there was a surplus.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Wow, we had a so called Surplus in the "April TAX 15th paying season" Quarter. It would be interesting to see May and/or June separated from April. This happens every year around tax time as all (most) of the people who owe taxes pay them.

It WILL go very negative again in the July, Aug., Sept quarter....PERIOD.

And it also appears that the yearly defecit will be less than projected. The deficit has continues to contract, just like every other post recession budget...

 

[Jhhnn]

I love this generalized "they're just as bad" routine, which is demonstrably false, along with the phony pollyanna numbers.

First, let's take our numbers from a reliable source, the bureau of the public debt. According to them, we owed ~$597B more on Sept 30, 2004 than we did a year earlier. That's the real deficit. All the other numbers bandied around are just for propaganda purposes. It rose by $555B the previous year, $421B the year before that, $133B the year before that, and only $18B the year before that, fiscal year 2000...

What changed after 2000? Oh, yeh, Bush moved into the Whitehouse, then he and his congressional cronies went wild with an orgy of pork and fatcat taxcuts... there was an economic downturn, too, but the Admin described it as "Mild", remember? Not actually a recession at all, according to the Whitehouse... but we needed huge deficits to , uhh, stimulate the economy, which wasn't really bad, anyway... and we'll give those taxcuts to the folks at the top, who won't really spend much of it, anyway... to stimulate the economy, right?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

Total federal debt under Republican leadership has increased by nearly 40% ($2T) in four years... talking out of both sides of their mouths the whole time...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I love this generalized "they're just as bad" routine, which is demonstrably false, along with the phony pollyanna numbers.

First, let's take our numbers from a reliable source, the bureau of the public debt. According to them, we owed ~$597B more on Sept 30, 2004 than we did a year earlier. That's the real deficit. All the other numbers bandied around are just for propaganda purposes. It rose by $555B the previous year, $421B the year before that, $133B the year before that, and only $18B the year before that, fiscal year 2000...

What changed after 2000? Oh, yeh, Bush moved into the Whitehouse, then he and his congressional cronies went wild with an orgy of pork and fatcat taxcuts... there was an economic downturn, too, but the Admin described it as "Mild", remember? Not actually a recession at all, according to the Whitehouse... but we needed huge deficits to , uhh, stimulate the economy, which wasn't really bad, anyway... and we'll give those taxcuts to the folks at the top, who won't really spend much of it, anyway... to stimulate the economy, right?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

Total federal debt under Republican leadership has increased by nearly 40% ($2T) in four years... talking out of both sides of their mouths the whole time...

Hush, child. We don't abide none of them "fact" thingies when the faithful are cheerleading for GWB. God talks to him, you know.

😉

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I love this generalized "they're just as bad" routine, which is demonstrably false, along with the phony pollyanna numbers.

First, let's take our numbers from a reliable source, the bureau of the public debt. According to them, we owed ~$597B more on Sept 30, 2004 than we did a year earlier. That's the real deficit. All the other numbers bandied around are just for propaganda purposes. It rose by $555B the previous year, $421B the year before that, $133B the year before that, and only $18B the year before that, fiscal year 2000...

What changed after 2000? Oh, yeh, Bush moved into the Whitehouse, then he and his congressional cronies went wild with an orgy of pork and fatcat taxcuts... there was an economic downturn, too, but the Admin described it as "Mild", remember? Not actually a recession at all, according to the Whitehouse... but we needed huge deficits to , uhh, stimulate the economy, which wasn't really bad, anyway... and we'll give those taxcuts to the folks at the top, who won't really spend much of it, anyway... to stimulate the economy, right?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

Total federal debt under Republican leadership has increased by nearly 40% ($2T) in four years... talking out of both sides of their mouths the whole time...

OF course you want to use a different standard so that you can say clinton balanced the budget, when in fact debt continued to expand.

Looking at these debts as compared to previous recession debts, these debts are smaller in relation to gdp/inflation, however they are still too large. You also somehow want to claim that these debts would have been significantly had clinton been elected for a 3rd term....

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, charrison.

If this increase in debt was merely a Keynsian attempt to assist the economy, then why oh why are the taxcuts permanent, and why did they go predominantly to people who won't use them to increase their personal consumption?

The Debt figures cut thru the crap, tell us the truth about what happened. And you're absolutely right in a very technical sense- Clinton did not balance the budget. He came very close, however. Then GWB stepped in, expanded the losses 33X over...

And, btw, if things are all better now wrt the economy, as claimed by the admin, why are we still running huge deficits, and why are repubs pushing for even more debt thru additional taxcuts and additional liabilities, like the proposed SS buyout?

Not only do Bush fans believe in lies, they even have the temerity to defend them, closing the circle of denial. Damnedest thing I've ever had the misfortune to witness, and a truly sad commentary on the nature and extent of the thought processes actually involved in so-called conservative politics.

 

[Czar]

isnt it like this

You make a spending plan. Lets say we have an income of $100, spend $200 and previosly we owe $300. So thats a total of -$100 for the period of this plan, now all of a sudden instead of assuming we spend $200 we actually spend $180, so hurrey we are at a -$80 for this time. And since we are on the plan nothing changes since we already have borrowed the money to account for the original -$100 so we have here an extra $20 of borrowed money we decide to use to pay of the debts.

make sense?

 

[sonoma1993]

is this make belive surplus the treasury department that put out before or after the recent signing for an addiontal $80 billion some dollar for the iraq war.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, charrison.

If this increase in debt was merely a Keynsian attempt to assist the economy, then why oh why are the taxcuts permanent, and why did they go predominantly to people who won't use them to increase their personal consumption?


IF tax receipts are rising and the defecit shrinking, why would the tax cuts need to be repealed




The Debt figures cut thru the crap, tell us the truth about what happened. And you're absolutely right in a very technical sense- Clinton did not balance the budget. He came very close, however. Then GWB stepped in, expanded the losses 33X over...


And somehow you beleive clinton(if elected a 4rd term) would have been able to avoid the recession and the loss massive loss to tax receipts caused by defecit spending to stimulate the economy. Or would have prefered a politician to tax us back into prosperity.


And, btw, if things are all better now wrt the economy, as claimed by the admin, why are we still running huge deficits, and why are repubs pushing for even more debt thru additional taxcuts and additional liabilities, like the proposed SS buyout?

I would prefer to have SS reform, however the democrat only seem interested in more payroll taxes for their reform. I am just as willing to let it crash as to reform it. The current course of SS is not sustainable, nor is higher payroll taxes the fix for it. I dont want my kids paying 20% payroll taxes to support my SS retirement at a 30% cut. The demographics have changed and so should SS>



Not only do Bush fans believe in lies, they even have the temerity to defend them, closing the circle of denial. Damnedest thing I've ever had the misfortune to witness, and a truly sad commentary on the nature and extent of the thought processes actually involved in so-called conservative politics.

You are far more hooked on the democratic propiganda than most of conservatives are hooked the republican propiganda.

 

[jjzelinski]

So Bush will get us out of the budgetary quigmire he's constructed by the time he leaves office?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Stunt
If taxes were due on a quarterly basis instead of a yearly basis...yes you would have a surplus...fortunately or unfortunately this is NOT the case 😛

Huh? Have you never run a business? Taxes ARE due on a quarterly basis and that's just small businesses, larger corporations probably have to remit witheld employee taxes as they are receieved. If you cut a check at the end of the year for all the taxes you owed you would be hit with some MAJOR penalties for not making estimated quarterly tax payments.

 

[Jhhnn]

from charrison-

"IF tax receipts are rising and the defecit shrinking, why would the tax cuts need to be repealed?"

Shrinking to what, charrison? Only $400B or so for fiscal 2005? Golly gee whiz. Helluva definition of progress, almost Orwellian. Interesting how Repubs who were foaming at the mouth for a balanced budget amendment in the 90's now defend the second worst string of fiscal tomfoolery in our history... oh, yeh, the worst was the mystical demi-god of the modern Right, Reagan, and they defend him, too...

Quick, charrison, tell me what the interest payment is on $2T at 5%- nah, don't bother, I already know the answer, it's $100B/yr- now a permanent fixture of the budget, thanks to GWB. Maybe he can double that over his second term, huh?

As for the rest, the only portion of the tax cuts that actually stimulated the economy were those received by the middle and working classes- they mostly spent it, which stimulates the economy. And that should have been temporary, in the form of rebates or whatever...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

from charrison-

"IF tax receipts are rising and the defecit shrinking, why would the tax cuts need to be repealed?"

Shrinking to what, charrison? Only $400B or so for fiscal 2005? Golly gee whiz. Helluva definition of progress, almost Orwellian. Interesting how Repubs who were foaming at the mouth for a balanced budget amendment in the 90's now defend the second worst string of fiscal tomfoolery in our history... oh, yeh, the worst was the mystical demi-god of the modern Right, Reagan, and they defend him, too...


The fact is, receipts are rising and the defecit is shrinking. The defecits will likely be closer to 300B(yes still too large) than 400B this year. The administration has done a pretty good job of overestimating the size of the budgets. But as i have said before, there would have have a recession and defecits, even if clinton was elected for a 3rd term.




Quick, charrison, tell me what the interest payment is on $2T at 5%- nah, don't bother, I already know the answer, it's $100B/yr- now a permanent fixture of the budget, thanks to GWB. Maybe he can double that over his second term, huh?


Yeah that is how much SS costs a year right now, but you dont seem to mind that debt and you seem to want to increase that.



As for the rest, the only portion of the tax cuts that actually stimulated the economy were those received by the middle and working classes- they mostly spent it, which stimulates the economy. And that should have been temporary, in the form of rebates or whatever...

Unless the rich shoved their tax cuts under a matress or buried it in the back yard, the rich spent their tax cuts too.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I'm somehow reminded of this thread.

Too bad even the most 'liberal' fiscal responsibility went out the door at the same time as Clinton. America almost had things under control for a while there.

 

[Jhhnn]

Stunning, charrison. I bring forth the real numbers, from the bureau of public debt, no less, and you act as if I blew a dog whistle- you know, where the frequency is above the range of human hearing. Didn't faze you one little bit. If the Admin says the deficit was "only" $420B, but we're $597B further in the hole, wouldn't that seem to indicate that they're not telling the truth? And why would that be?

And you seem to believe other things that aren't true, as well. SS is a big fat cash cow at the moment, taking in ~$150B more than it pays out. The interest payments are merely a ledger entry for the present time- no money actually changes hands. Reagan helped to develop the whole SS trust scenario, along with bipartisan congressional support in 1983. The stated objective was to "solve" the same kind of liquidity crisis we anticipate in 2018. And it would, too, if we're not buried under a mountain of other debt... Maintaining the solvency of the govt and the trust wil carry us to ~2042, so we'd have time to think, and plan, and make changes as required to carry it even further into the future...

That's not what's happening, at all, and I think we both know it, or should. This is not a time to be borrowing huge sums, or taking on unfunded liabilities like the senior drug benefit. It's not a time to be cutting taxes on a permanent basis, or waging elective war. But the Bush Admin is doing all of them, plunging headlong into uncharted fiscal waters... implementing a self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts, creating another crisis where none need exist, at all...

To a certain extent, recessions reflect a reduced velocity of money in the economy. Keynsian theory calls for cash injections at places where money is moving the fastest in order to create a short term demand based stimulus. Money has the lowest velocity at the very top echelons- very little of huge incomes is actually spent, it's re-invested. Cutting taxes at the top accomplishes very little in the short term and is even counterproductive in the long term. As the top % of income increases, as it has been for the last 25 years, the overall velocity of money decreases... So the wealthy took their tax cuts and reinvested them, often in govt bonds, conveniently made more available in a troubled marketplace by... taxcuts and deficits... We cut taxes so we could borrow more from the folks who got the biggest breaks, and end up paying interest on it, too...

And Conservatives claim SS is a Ponzi scheme, even as they implement the biggest financial swindle in the history of the world...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Stunning, charrison. I bring forth the real numbers, from the bureau of public debt, no less, and you act as if I blew a dog whistle- you know, where the frequency is above the range of human hearing. Didn't faze you one little bit. If the Admin says the deficit was "only" $420B, but we're $597B further in the hole, wouldn't that seem to indicate that they're not telling the truth? And why would that be?

The reason they are not telling the truth is that LBJ moved SS off budget and basically required congress to spend SS surpluses, but yet not count it in defecit. That difference of $170B is money to goverment owes itself. Getting those surpluses out of the hands of congress is the major thing that needs to be done with SS reform. But hey, you would rather raise payroll taxes and let congress have more money to spend(which is it required to do with SS surpluses).





And you seem to believe other things that aren't true, as well. SS is a big fat cash cow at the moment, taking in ~$150B more than it pays out. The interest payments are merely a ledger entry for the present time- no money actually changes hands. Reagan helped to develop the whole SS trust scenario, along with bipartisan congressional support in 1983. The stated objective was to "solve" the same kind of liquidity crisis we anticipate in 2018. And it would, too, if we're not buried under a mountain of other debt... Maintaining the solvency of the govt and the trust wil carry us to ~2042, so we'd have time to think, and plan, and make changes as required to carry it even further into the future...

It was LBJ, not reagan that created the trust fund that required congress to spend the surpluses. However we have yet to see a plan from the democrats on how to make SS solvent long term, other than raise taxes, which has proven to be innefective against the changing demographics of this country.






That's not what's happening, at all, and I think we both know it, or should. This is not a time to be borrowing huge sums, or taking on unfunded liabilities like the senior drug benefit. It's not a time to be cutting taxes on a permanent basis, or waging elective war. But the Bush Admin is doing all of them, plunging headlong into uncharted fiscal waters... implementing a self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts, creating another crisis where none need exist, at all...

I cant disagree with you on the drug bill. But once again we are no where near record debt levels. WE are not so broke right we cant fix what is wrong.



To a certain extent, recessions reflect a reduced velocity of money in the economy. Keynsian theory calls for cash injections at places where money is moving the fastest in order to create a short term demand based stimulus. Money has the lowest velocity at the very top echelons- very little of huge incomes is actually spent, it's re-invested. Cutting taxes at the top accomplishes very little in the short term and is even counterproductive in the long term. As the top % of income increases, as it has been for the last 25 years, the overall velocity of money decreases... So the wealthy took their tax cuts and reinvested them, often in govt bonds, conveniently made more available in a troubled marketplace by... taxcuts and deficits... We cut taxes so we could borrow more from the folks who got the biggest breaks, and end up paying interest on it, too...


WTF do you think people do with investments? PEople dont money from someone to hid under a matress or bury in the back yard. Investments get spent.



And Conservatives claim SS is a Ponzi scheme, even as they implement the biggest financial swindle in the history of the world...

Well considering SS/medicare is about 1/2 the budget, I would have to say your wrong.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Stunning, charrison. I bring forth the real numbers, from the bureau of public debt, no less, and you act as if I blew a dog whistle- you know, where the frequency is above the range of human hearing. Didn't faze you one little bit. If the Admin says the deficit was "only" $420B, but we're $597B further in the hole, wouldn't that seem to indicate that they're not telling the truth? And why would that be?

The reason they are not telling the truth is that LBJ moved SS off budget and basically required congress to spend SS surpluses, but yet not count it in defecit. That difference of $170B is money to goverment owes itself. Getting those surpluses out of the hands of congress is the major thing that needs to be done with SS reform. But hey, you would rather raise payroll taxes and let congress have more money to spend(which is it required to do with SS surpluses).





And you seem to believe other things that aren't true, as well. SS is a big fat cash cow at the moment, taking in ~$150B more than it pays out. The interest payments are merely a ledger entry for the present time- no money actually changes hands. Reagan helped to develop the whole SS trust scenario, along with bipartisan congressional support in 1983. The stated objective was to "solve" the same kind of liquidity crisis we anticipate in 2018. And it would, too, if we're not buried under a mountain of other debt... Maintaining the solvency of the govt and the trust wil carry us to ~2042, so we'd have time to think, and plan, and make changes as required to carry it even further into the future...

It was LBJ, not reagan that created the trust fund that required congress to spend the surpluses. However we have yet to see a plan from the democrats on how to make SS solvent long term, other than raise taxes, which has proven to be innefective against the changing demographics of this country.






That's not what's happening, at all, and I think we both know it, or should. This is not a time to be borrowing huge sums, or taking on unfunded liabilities like the senior drug benefit. It's not a time to be cutting taxes on a permanent basis, or waging elective war. But the Bush Admin is doing all of them, plunging headlong into uncharted fiscal waters... implementing a self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts, creating another crisis where none need exist, at all...

I cant disagree with you on the drug bill. But once again we are no where near record debt levels. WE are not so broke right we cant fix what is wrong.



To a certain extent, recessions reflect a reduced velocity of money in the economy. Keynsian theory calls for cash injections at places where money is moving the fastest in order to create a short term demand based stimulus. Money has the lowest velocity at the very top echelons- very little of huge incomes is actually spent, it's re-invested. Cutting taxes at the top accomplishes very little in the short term and is even counterproductive in the long term. As the top % of income increases, as it has been for the last 25 years, the overall velocity of money decreases... So the wealthy took their tax cuts and reinvested them, often in govt bonds, conveniently made more available in a troubled marketplace by... taxcuts and deficits... We cut taxes so we could borrow more from the folks who got the biggest breaks, and end up paying interest on it, too...


WTF do you think people do with investments? PEople dont money from someone to hid under a matress or bury in the back yard. Investments get spent.



And Conservatives claim SS is a Ponzi scheme, even as they implement the biggest financial swindle in the history of the world...

Well considering SS/medicare is about 1/2 the budget, I would have to say your wrong.

Is S.S. even included in the normal budget? I thought it was seperate from the budget.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Is S.S. even included in the normal budget? I thought it was seperate from the budget.

The answer is yes and no. It is part of the normal budget, but surpluses are off budget to hide the real of amount of debt our goverment is collecting.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wall Street analysts reduced their deficit forecasts this week, from around $400 billion to around $370 billion. In nominal dollar terms, that would still be the third-highest deficit on record. Even measured against the size of the economy, "it's still a high number," said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc., a Massachusetts forecasting firm. "It needs to come down."

This is NOT a surplus irwincur. Now who's the moron who can't read?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Wall Street analysts reduced their deficit forecasts this week, from around $400 billion to around $370 billion. In nominal dollar terms, that would still be the third-highest deficit on record. Even measured against the size of the economy, "it's still a high number," said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc., a Massachusetts forecasting firm. "It needs to come down."

This is NOT a surplus irwincur. Now who's the moron who can't read?

The surplus was used in context with the current quarter, not the year. Eitherway tax receipts are improving and defecit is shrinking...

 

[wirelessenabled]

It's weird, isn't it? We went from Tax-and-spend Democrats to Tax-and-spend Republicans. Just another little bit of evidence to tell us all that there really is no significant difference between a jackass and an elephant.

Jason

WRONG!

It may be the "tax and spend" Democrats but it is the
"borrow and spend" Republicans.

 

[conjur]

Tax receipts increased because more married filers and small business owners were hit hard by the AMT. Also, taxes from benefits available to partners have increased.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
Tax receipts increased because more married filers and small business owners were hit hard by the AMT. Also, taxes from benefits available to partners have increased.

I thought you wanted the wealthy taxed? But AMT is not the only reason tax receipts are up, but yes it is one of the reason. The AMT is not too bad at this point.