USA Yearly National Deficit Numbers Declining...

Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator by



Projected for 2014 - around 540 billion.


BTW...


The deficit is the yearly shortfall of the federal gov.

The national debt is the total amount the federal gov owes to various parties which is now around 17 trillion.
#off topic

  • Profile picture of the author Horny Devil
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Thank goodness for sequestration...
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    So what happened to the like 20TRILLION outside of that? Last I saw, the average "budget deficit" was like 1.6Trillion/year(So the effect on the debt is 1T, 2T, 3.6T,5.2T,6.8T,8.5T,10.1T,11.6T). and that was since 2008(So just the last 8 years, about 11.6T in DEBT, according to the "budget"! It didn't start with Bush, but it was before this admin.). And don't forget the debts slated to start increasing about 2 weeks ago.

    ALSO, PLEASE tell congress! And PLEASE PLEASE tell S&P, MOODY'S, ETC.... AND PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell the US DEBT CLOCK: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

    They STILL seem to think our debt is about $17.321T+

    Steve
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by Horny Devil View Post

    BTW he was WRONG! There are at least FOUR! Not that it matters TOO much, because the US is being attacked on ALL FOUR FRONTS! I WOULD tell you the other two, but TOO POLITICAL.

    Steve
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    The deficit is declining. This great news is brought to you by the people who cannot account for 9 Trillion dollars...

  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

    So what happened to the like 20TRILLION outside of that? Last I saw, the average "budget deficit" was like 1.6Trillion/year(So the effect on the debt is 1T, 2T, 3.6T,5.2T,6.8T,8.5T,10.1T,11.6T). and that was since 2008(So just the last 8 years, about 11.6T in DEBT, according to the "budget"! It didn't start with Bush, but it was before this admin.). And don't forget the debts slated to start increasing about 2 weeks ago.

    ALSO, PLEASE tell congress! And PLEASE PLEASE tell S&P, MOODY'S, ETC.... AND PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell the US DEBT CLOCK: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

    They STILL seem to think our debt is about $17.321T+

    Steve
    This admin is making up all sorts of figures. Go figure. And...the deficit is different from the debt. The debt CAN'T go down under this fiat currency. It doesn't work that way. That's why the "debt" is more of a diversionary device to scare people who don't understand the difference between macro and micro economics. YOU can pay a personal debt down.

    The money to pay down the debt on a national level doesn't exist. Every time a dollar is printed it costs xx to print it and then there is also a % attached to it. Where does the money come from to pay that? It doesn't exist. You have to print it (i.e. - accrue more debt). The only way the debt can be decreased is if part or all of it is cancelled.

    The main reason the money system was set up like this was to steal the people's freedom. We are surfs to the world bank. The contract either is about to expire or did, and we could be free people again if Congress didn't revote us back into the system. Since they are just electing a new person to run the fed, it looks like they signed us up for another hundred years of slavery. Exciting huh?
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

    The deficit is declining. This great news is brought to you by the people who cannot account for 9 Trillion dollars...

    THAT'S what happened! OK, OK, I'll tell you the 3rd way you destroy a country! Have the "leadership" and/or media ******LIE******!

    OK, they just said they lost 9T, and don't count it as the debt. VIOLA! INSTANT deficit reduction! This is done ALL THE TIME. With PEOPLE, usually something ends up getting repossessed, or people get killed.

    Steve
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

    THAT'S what happened! OK, OK, I'll tell you the 3rd way you destroy a country! Have the "leadership" and/or media ******LIE******!

    OK, they just said they lost 9T, and don't count it as the debt. VIOLA! INSTANT deficit reduction! This is done ALL THE TIME. With PEOPLE, usually something ends up getting repossessed, or people get killed.

    Steve
    You think it's limited to nine trillion? That's just the monkey that got out of the bag.
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

    You think it's limited to nine trillion? That's just the monkey that got out of the bag.
    HECK NO! I one time estimated it to be well into the trillions DECADES ago! When they talk about debt, they mean IMMEDIATE RIGHT THIS SECOND debt!

    Quick question! You buy a 1 MILLION dollar home the traditional way, AT ASKING, WHAT is your debt, WITH a 100% mortgage?

    I say $1,000,000 to about $4,000,000!

    The GOVERNMENT, just for THEM, and PUBLICITY, says the debt is $8,800! That's IT, not even $9 THOUSAND on a 1 MILLION dollar home! THAT is why they kept speaking of "social security surpluses" when in reality they won't know that until like 10 year after the fact, which is ,ideally, NEVER!

    Steve
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

    THAT'S what happened! OK, OK, I'll tell you the 3rd way you destroy a country! Have the "leadership" and/or media ******LIE******!

    OK, they just said they lost 9T, and don't count it as the debt. VIOLA! INSTANT deficit reduction! This is done ALL THE TIME. With PEOPLE, usually something ends up getting repossessed, or people get killed.

    Steve
    Yep, need to cut back on the Stargate program, LOL!


    Shane

    That is the TV one, not the remote viewing one! :p
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

    Yep, need to cut back on the Stargate program, LOL!


    Shane

    That is the TV one, not the remote viewing one! :p
    Screw that, they need to put it back in production.
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    HELL YES STARGATE == AWESOME TV SHOW
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    You have to see the humor. The sequester had D.C. kicking and screaming...and now it's given equal deficit reduction credit with low interest rates, lack of stimulus spending and higher taxes.

    The debt reached a shocking $17 trillion in mid-October. Now it's 1/3 of the way to $18 trillion. The debt per taxpayer has gone past the $150k mark.
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    You have to see the humor. The sequester had D.C. kicking and screaming...and now it's given equal deficit reduction credit with low interest rates, lack of stimulus spending and higher taxes.

    The debt reached a shocking $17 trillion in mid-October. Now it's 1/3 of the way to $18 trillion. The debt per taxpayer has gone past the $150k mark.
    The sequester is only worth about 80 bill of the yearly reduction and its no wonder that some people don't like it since...

    ... it was/is one of the stupidest and counter-productive (from a pure numerical standpoint) ways to cut the yearly budget.

    Such as...

    - The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that keeping the spending cuts from sequestration in place through fiscal 2014 would cost up to 1.6 million jobs.

    - Canceling the cuts, on the other hand, would yield between 300,000 to 1.6 million new jobs, with the most likely outcome being the addition of 900,000, the CBO said.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...#ixzz2q6URXKGG
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

    CBO: Sequester cuts would cost up to 1.6M jobs through 2014 | TheHill


    The only reason for the sequestration was because some people (who claim to be deficit hawks) ...

    ...would not in any way shape or form get any of the gravy tax giveaways to the wealthy and corps out of the tax code and give it back to the treasury where by law (for those that claim it will only be wasted) ... it could have been used for deficit reduction - only.

    Instead... (protecting the gravy tax giveaways at all costs)

    Those very same people would rather take money from programs like meals on wheels, head start, food stamps and military pensions instead of taking back those gravy tax giveaways to the wealthy and large corps...

    ... which easily amounts to 200-400 billion per year - some say much more.


    *** The yearly deficit could easily be 200-400 billion lower right now.

    The only money the wealthy have contributed to deficit reduction was the 60-70 billion per year when their top tax rate was recently raised from 35% to 39% as it was during the Clinton years.

    Those very same wonderful people on the hill held the rate for normal earners hostage for a few years saying...

    ... if the rates on the wealthy has to go up then the rates must go up on everyone but eventually they were finally outflanked by public opinion and had to relent.

    The number one quickest and most productive way of getting rid of the yearly deficit so that we can start working on the 17 trillion national debt is to...

    ... get the economy going again with strategic investments in our people and the country- not by a slew of economically counter-productive measures like crushing workers, throwing people off food stamps and unemployment insurance.

    As far as the national debt is concerned, we are out of the danger of long term trillion dollar yearly deficits adding to it...

    ...and IMHO the nation can easily carry the 17 trillion national debt and the interest payments on it until we turn the economy and the yearly deficit situation around until we're in surplus territory.

    Note: about half of the national debt is owned by foreigners.

    No one can say the nation can not manage its finances because we've already done it after running up the debt from 1980 to 1992 and had a balanced budget along with a surplus in the last 2 years of the term of POTUS #42. (circa 2000AD)


    BTW...

    What's the use of the federal gov having a great balance sheet if the population is further impoverished as a result?
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    ...and IMHO the nation can easily carry the 17 trillion national debt and the interest payments on it until we turn the economy and the yearly deficit situation around until we're in surplus territory.
    How about 18 or 20 trillion - which is predicted by the budget office? We can manage the debt....until we can't.

    Arguing sequester is a dead issue - it was supported by both sides of the aisle (include the President) because no one thought the other side would go that far. It was a game of chicken at a high level and both sides contributed.

    We are losing balance in our society/economy.

    Great: More Americans on Welfare Than Working Full Time - Christine Rousselle

    A new report from the Census Bureau (2013 report) showed a total of 108,592,000 people were on some sort of means-tested government benefits program in the fourth quarter of 2011, yet only 101,716,000 people were employed full-time for the entire year.
    That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round. The Census Bureau counted as recipients of means-tested government programs “anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program.” Many of these people lived in households receiving more than one form of means-tested benefit at the same time.
    - See more at: Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers | CNS News
    That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.

    Consider the economic times, those numbers may make sense - but they won't work if they become permanent. They won't work if we continue to add more and more benefits that must be paid out.

    The Census Bureau counted as recipients of means-tested government programs “anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program.” Many of these people lived in households receiving more than one form of means-tested benefit at the same time.
    We have to help those who need help but we have to balance that with reality of how much of our resources can be spent on those programs.
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

    The sequester is only worth about 80 bill of the yearly reduction and its no wonder that some people don't like it since...

    ... it was/is one of the stupidest and counter-productive (from a pure numerical standpoint) ways to cut the yearly budget.

    Such as...

    - The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that keeping the spending cuts from sequestration in place through fiscal 2014 would cost up to 1.6 million jobs.

    - Canceling the cuts, on the other hand, would yield between 300,000 to 1.6 million new jobs, with the most likely outcome being the addition of 900,000, the CBO said.
    So you are saying 1.6 million new PAID jobs are created with NO COST, NO TAXES, and NO NEED? ******FANTASTIC!****** Why don't they create an extra say 3 billion jobs, and employ the entire planet!?!?!?!?!?!?

    The only reason for the sequestration was because some people (who claim to be deficit hawks) ...
    ACTUALLY the who and why can't be discussed here, but I know YOU wouldn't like it!

    Those very same people would rather take money from programs like meals on wheels, head start, food stamps and military pensions instead of taking back those gravy tax giveaways to the wealthy and large corps...
    No they wouldn't!

    The only money the wealthy have contributed to deficit reduction was the 60-70 billion per year when their top tax rate was recently raised from 35% to 39% as it was during the Clinton years.
    Considering what many seem to consider rich WHO do you think is paying the tax?

    "R"=T-S

    **********WHY********* does everyone care so much about R while S throws it down the toilet? That IS what is happening! You always talk about T because then you can blame everyone ELSE while you SQUANDER S!

    You know what it is like? It is like you "run" a food pantry and have NO security on it! You take a portion of the stuff from the top as pay for "running" the pantry. People DONATE ******TONS****** of food! And others complain, because they don't get enough FOOD(R). YOU say the problem is that you don't get enough DONATIONS(T)! ALL THE WHILE YOU and your cronies take from the food, and let mice and other vermin rummage through the rest!

    What's the use of the federal gov having a great balance sheet if the population is further impoverished as a result?
    WOW! OK, let's say we DON'T read the laws before passing them, counter bad laws, follow the constitution, or have a budget. *******WOW*******! I just figured out a way to balance the budget while lowering taxes and regulations! It is so ABSURDLY obvious! If my premise is true, according to your proposal, then we have THOUSANDS, NO, MILLIONS, that are HEAVILY overpaid for what they promised to do but obviously won't be doing! FIRE THEM, VOID ALL BENEFITS, and it would give us potentially TRILLIONS to pay of the debt with. HECK, SUE them for preference, under ยง547!

    Steve
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    ...We have to help those who need help but we have to balance that with reality of how much of our resources can be spent on those programs.
    I don't believe that there are 20 politicians on the national stage that are even capable of it.

    One side of the aisle subscribes to the economic fallacy that deficit spending is good. That it is the answer to our economic troubles. Spend our way to prosperity. The fault with that approach is that it doesn't work, and no amount of evidence to the contrary even fazes them. If the results aren't showing, then we haven't borrowed and spent enough, and the government hasn't acted the part of Robin Hood effectively enough - if the poor had all the riches' money we'd be in fat city.

    On the other hand, the other side has history on its side, but is unable to use because they're either too scared of being demagogued right out of the capitol, or ... there is no 'or'. They're typical politicians in that their only true ideology is reelection.

    Every time taxes have been reduced by a significant amount, treasury receipts have increased and the growth rate has jumped.

    But here's the biggest problem, and why fiscally responsible politicians (if there is such a thing) rarely make it to Washington D.C.: who's going to vote for Scrooge over Robin Hood?
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

    I don't believe that there are 20 politicians on the national stage that are even capable of it.

    One side of the aisle subscribes to the economic fallacy that deficit spending is good. That it is the answer to our economic troubles. Spend our way to prosperity. The fault with that approach is that it doesn't work, and no amount of evidence to the contrary even fazes them. If the results aren't showing, then we haven't borrowed and spent enough, and the government hasn't acted the part of Robin Hood effectively enough - if the poor had all the riches' money we'd be in fat city.

    On the other hand, the other side has history on its side, but is unable to use because they're either too scared of being demagogued right out of the capitol, or ... there is no 'or'. They're typical politicians in that their only true ideology is reelection.

    Every time taxes have been reduced by a significant amount, treasury receipts have increased and the growth rate has jumped.

    But here's the biggest problem, and why fiscally responsible politicians (if there is such a thing) rarely make it to Washington D.C.: who's going to vote for Scrooge over Robin Hood?
    but what if we put Mike TYson in charge, I think that would resolve much of the problem.

    He is perhaps the only person who has enough charisma to win the White House and reach across the political spectrum.

    He is muslim and black, has a Mao Tse-Tung tattoo yet he campaigned alongside republicans.He is a lover of animals( pigeons) so he can rally all the PETA freaks and the friends of nature.

    The main problem in politics is name recognition. Everyone knows Mike Tyson. Anthropologists would go to undiscovered tribes in Africa and they would know Mike Tyson.

    He can have Dennis Rodman as a running mate. Rodman has great diplomatic skills and actually is friend with Kim Jung Un.

    Wow.

    Unbeatable ticket.



  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    Unfortunately, we often elect good politicians - not good businessmen or economists or....the depths are shallow in a sound byte world.
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    How about 18 or 20 trillion - which is predicted by the budget office? We can manage the debt....until we can't.

    Arguing sequester is a dead issue - it was supported by both sides of the aisle (include the President) because no one thought the other side would go that far. It was a game of chicken at a high level and both sides contributed.

    We are losing balance in our society/economy.

    Great: More Americans on Welfare Than Working Full Time - Christine Rousselle

    That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.

    Consider the economic times, those numbers may make sense - but they won't work if they become permanent. They won't work if we continue to add more and more benefits that must be paid out.

    We have to help those who need help but we have to balance that with reality of how much of our resources can be spent on those programs.
    Once again the only reason for the sequester is that some folks on the hill refuse to get any money (raise revenues) out of the tax code but you just don't want to admit it.

    They've finagled a lot of cuts since 2009 but they simply refuse to raise any revenues.

    They rather throw kids off head start and food stamps than rescind that 200-400 billion in gravy tax giveaways to the wealthy and corps.


    BTW...

    I love how the 108 million persons is counted and perceived by some folks.

    If only one person in the household is receiving any type of aid - the entire household is counted so...

    One could easily get the erroneous impression that all 108 million of them are getting a individual check each verse only 101 million people working full time.

    It reminds me of the 47% not paying taxes figure cited often by some folks.

    You said...

    "How about 18 or 20 trillion - which is predicted by the budget office? We can manage the debt....until we can't."

    I say...


    As a nation we've carried a lot of debt before.






    I say...

    From what I've heard, even if its 25 trillion, as long as the economy is growing faster than the national debt - the total national debt is not a problem - we can carry the debt.

    It won't be the best of all situations especially since the interest paid on that huge debt could be used for stuff like...

    ..., paying down the national debt, lowering taxes for ordinary folks, investment in the nation, applied towards all those aid programs or saved for a rainy day but we can live with it - and since its so huge, it looks like we're going to have to live with it for the foreseeable future.


    >>> And we're not even close to justifying throwing children off food stamps along with the rest of the counter productive cuts.

    FYI...

    Total interest payments -- the $220 billion plus $140 billion in interest paid for intragovernmental borrowing, such as tapping surplus Social Security funds -- was about $360 billion in 2012. That corresponds with the total debt of roughly $17 trillion.


    That's why a big priority should be to help get the economy going full blast and some again.

    This is a consumer based economy meaning the more people spending money the better and where some of them get their money is not that important - as long as they're spending it.


    The faster we get that yearly deficit down the slower we add another trillion to the total national debt so...

    ... true deficit hawks should be more than happy to endorse plans that...

    a: Rescind that 200-400 billion in yearly gravy tax giveaways to the wealthy and the large corps and return it straight to the treasury for deficit reduction.

    (that would put a nice dent in the yearly deficit and won't hurt the economy in any way, shape or form - its simply gravy.

    b: Measures that clearly stimulate job growth such as fixing our infrastructure and going green and other investments in the nation and our people.

    At the turn of the 21st century, the nation ran a 200+ billion yearly surplus.

    The number of people receiving for example food stamps has doubled since 2006 but I bet that number and most of the other numbers related to aid programs will go down once the economy recovers.

    -- Since the yearly deficit is coming down - from 1.4 trill in 2009 to a projected 540 bill in 2014, we are out of danger as far as the national debt problem is concerned.

    Yes, we need to be a lot more careful about who gets what and how much but throwing woman and kids off food stamps etc. especially when its economically counter-productive and also adds to the national deficit - because this is a economically consumer society - is clearly not the way to go.

    It would be a much better (economically) and humane strategy to get those gravy tax giveaways from the wealthy and the large corps back to working for us...

    ... instead of taking money from poor old people and military pensioners etc.

Next Topics on Trending Feed