Deficit reduction from 2009 to 2010.

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2011 budget year, which began on Oct. 1, will climb to $1.4 trillion. Over the next decade, it will total $8.47 trillion. Deficits of that size will constrain the administration's agenda over the next two years and will certainly be an issue in the 2012 presidential race.

From your source by the adminstration's own hand.

The Treasury will report the actual figures later this month. These are estimates. Keep your fingers crossed.

By no means should anyone be popping champagne bottles over this news. But it does show that the trend is at least going in the right direction.

No it shows an estimate that may be correct or not. It shows that we are to return to 2009levels in 2011. It may very well be higher than last year when real numbers are reported later in the month.
 
Prediction: First GOP'er to post will say it's still too much money spent and still too much taxation.


Can't really admit to being a Republican, there is definitely too much money being spent. Do you disagree with that part?

As far as taxes, I have no problem with me paying taxes. I have no problem with everyone paying taxes. I do have a problem with half of the country not paying any taxes on their income. If they use the Interstaes, enjoy domestic tranquility and vote, I don't understand why they don't pay taxes.

Even one dollar. Something. There should be no free rides.
 
The other thing people may want to look at is the stock market..and recent profit reports of major corporations.

Both have been doing well.

Is this where someone asks what that does for "main street?"

The Fed is giving free money to banks, who are using it to buy stocks.

40% of the stimulus package came in the form of tax breaks for small business, or "Boutique" tax cuts..as Indiana Congressman Mike Spence referred to them as..


40% of 787 Billion spent over, I have been informed, 10 years, giving breaks to small business with specific direction on how the money can be collected. The collection of that money over 10 years intended to stimulate business in 2009.

Some Congressman or Senator in DC knows more about stimulating a business in Indiana than the guy who owns that business.

Man Alive! That thinking is brilliant!
 
Anyone who can realize income in 2011 and pay taxes on it that year, instead of 2012 will do that..normally.

What's the point being made?

Income is artificially high, and hence tax revenue, because nobody wants ot pay 2011 rates.

Get back to us this time next year.

Seriously..where was the right when Bush dropped interest rates to zero?

That wasn't artificial?


When was Bush the Chairman of the Federal Reserve?
 
Was allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse and it's assets bought out by a foreign company good for America?


Looking back at that time and the decisions amde along with the narratives provided by those making the decisions, it's obvious, and none of the players disagree with this, that they really had no idea what they needed to do or how to do it.

Paulson, in explaining why he quoted the 700 billion number for TARP said that he just needed to say a number big enough to convince everyone that the administration was serious about correcting the problem.

The "plan" that he had justified the appropriation with was discarded before the money was actually available. Lehman was allowed to collapse and AIG was saved. Which was saved and which just sank was the product of when the crisis hit that entity and how the Feds felt at that moment.

There were no rules.
 
Republican response to anything: Not enough *blank*, Good but could've been better, More efficient *blank*.

They are like Goldilocks who never find the bowl of "just right" porridge


Which parts of the economic policy of this Congress and Administration do you find to be "just right"?
 
Last edited:
But your only concern is what some "GOPer" will say on a message board. :cuckoo:

GOP'ers had little concerns for these issues when Bush was running up debate, mortgaging our future to China, and passing the massive unfunded black hole that was the Medicare Prescription Drug plan.

As such, I have nothing for disdain for the partisan hacks when they complain now.


I'm assuming that "debate" s/b debt.

I agree that Bush spent too much, also. I've said before on this board that Bush is no Conservative. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor while the Big 0 spends money like a pimp with 3 days to live. The only difference is in magnitude. In terms of spending, though, both are Liberals.

I think the Medicare Drug thing was a good thing. Without both of the ill advised wars, this would have been easily paid for. A real live problem with a real live solution.

This was a part of the health care problem and was an incremental approach. Carve off one part that you CAN fix and fix that one part.

As far as mortgaging our future to China and your disdain for partisan hacks, we just suffered the largest ever trade deficite with China last month. What needs be said about Bush, partisan hacks and your disdain in light of this info?
 
Yeah, what a joke. No Democrats are singing "happy days are here again."

Of course not.

There's still a great deal of work to do to correct the massive damage caused by Republicans.


There is no evidence of any plan to do what you prescribe. The wars are being executed along lines defined by Bush. The TARP was executed along lines defined by Bush. The Failed Stimulus did nothing but make pay off, bribes and paybacks.

Comparing the state of affairs today with those when the Dems took control of Congress or even when the Big 0 took office:

Unemployment is worse. Average take-home pay is worse. People covered by employer health care is worse. People's attitudes on the future is worse. College graduates are moving home with mommy instead of finding work in far greater numbers. Forclosures, evictions, mortgage abandonment and delinquent mortgage payments are all worse.

The Congress has had 4 years to help and the Big 0 has had 2 years to help.

When might we expect to see their "corrections" begin?
 
Republican response to anything: Not enough *blank*, Good but could've been better, More efficient *blank*.

They are like Goldilocks who never find the bowl of "just right" porridge

You're right, as usual.

How many Democrats are running on this stunning economic record you've described?

That's funny because last night Hannity said that Dashle couldnt name 3 dems running on their record of healthcare. Then when Dashle provided the 3 he said:

"You cant name anyone running on healthcare besides those 3":lol:

Nothing is never enough


Who are the 3 he named? Are they contested?
 
Kind of empty, isn't it?

Not really. There's a tough challenge ahead and it's not helpful to constantly knock down people trying to rectify the situation.

It's like the old saying.

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.


Why didn't anybody mention this to the Big 0 and Nancy in the Healthcare insurance debate.

They decided on eating the thing whole.
 
Last edited:
Nothing "market based" about government forcing people to buy something with requirements set forth by government.

this statement is nonsense. what about a mandate excludes a market?


The first decision in any purchase is whether or not to make the purchase. In the case of healthcare insurance, deciding to make that purchase, if it were like other purchases, would have those that are healthy but run over in the street without insurance literally dying in the street.

Then we have the problem of Road Kill Clean Up and who will pay for that. Sounds like a separate lower cost policy to me.

In many ways, insurance is a product. In many ways, healthcare is a product. In many ways, the combination of both is a civil service.

This debate is NOT about healthcare but about insurance. One of the myriad problems with this debate is that nobody knows what we're talking about.

People are debating healthcare and voting on insurance. It's nuts.
 
27_2545284-12.jpg
 
Looks like it's going down..

Get Politics Alerts

Email Comments 466 WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is set to report Friday that the federal budget deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the second straight year, providing critics of government spending with fresh ammunition ahead of the midterm congressional elections.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion. That's down by $125 billion from the $1.4 trillion in 2009 - the highest deficit on record.

Deficit Report: 2010 Federal Budget Deficit Over $1 Trillion

Print Back to story Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows 13% to $90.5 Billion on Rising Tax Receipts
By Bob Willis - Sep 13, 2010 The U.S. government posted a smaller budget deficit in August compared with the same month last year, helped by rising tax receipts.

The excess of spending over revenue totaled $90.5 billion last month, smaller than the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and down 13 percent from $103.6 billion in August 2009, according to a Treasury Department report issued today in Washington. The gap for the fiscal year that started in October was $1.26 trillion compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time.

The economic recovery has helped generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, even as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the deficit this fiscal year will reach $1.34 trillion, the second-largest on record. The Obama administration faces the challenge of trying to limit the shortfall while stimulating an economy with joblessness close to 10 percent.

“We’re seeing the revenue coming back,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows 13% to $90.5 Billion on Rising Tax Receipts - Bloomberg

All this while the Average Joe saw taxes go down.

The old adage is true: If you want to live like a Republican..Vote Democrat.

All I see here is a liberal spin on the fact that government borrowed less this year then the last.
 
Ame®icano;2850614 said:
Looks like it's going down..

Get Politics Alerts

Email Comments 466 WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is set to report Friday that the federal budget deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the second straight year, providing critics of government spending with fresh ammunition ahead of the midterm congressional elections.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion. That's down by $125 billion from the $1.4 trillion in 2009 - the highest deficit on record.

Deficit Report: 2010 Federal Budget Deficit Over $1 Trillion

Print Back to story Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows 13% to $90.5 Billion on Rising Tax Receipts
By Bob Willis - Sep 13, 2010 The U.S. government posted a smaller budget deficit in August compared with the same month last year, helped by rising tax receipts.

The excess of spending over revenue totaled $90.5 billion last month, smaller than the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and down 13 percent from $103.6 billion in August 2009, according to a Treasury Department report issued today in Washington. The gap for the fiscal year that started in October was $1.26 trillion compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time.

The economic recovery has helped generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, even as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the deficit this fiscal year will reach $1.34 trillion, the second-largest on record. The Obama administration faces the challenge of trying to limit the shortfall while stimulating an economy with joblessness close to 10 percent.

“We’re seeing the revenue coming back,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Budget Deficit in U.S. Narrows 13% to $90.5 Billion on Rising Tax Receipts - Bloomberg

All this while the Average Joe saw taxes go down.

The old adage is true: If you want to live like a Republican..Vote Democrat.

All I see here is a liberal spin on the fact that government borrowed less this year then the last.

That's a big 10-4. They were ready to pile on another $1T in stimulus.

Who stopped that?
 
Nothing "market based" about government forcing people to buy something with requirements set forth by government.

this statement is nonsense. what about a mandate excludes a market?


The first decision in any purchase is whether or not to make the purchase. In the case of healthcare insurance, deciding to make that purchase, if it were like other purchases, would have those that are healthy but run over in the street without insurance literally dying in the street.

Then we have the problem of Road Kill Clean Up and who will pay for that. Sounds like a separate lower cost policy to me.

In many ways, insurance is a product. In many ways, healthcare is a product. In many ways, the combination of both is a civil service.

This debate is NOT about healthcare but about insurance. One of the myriad problems with this debate is that nobody knows what we're talking about.

People are debating healthcare and voting on insurance. It's nuts.

well, if you're paying attention, it is obviously about insurance. about HMOs. a choice to participate or not is still entered, it is just coerced. notwithstanding this, there is still a market arrangement by which to effect the purchase. i fail to see how the debate being mistaken for a healthcare issue or the fact that there is coercion or a mandate is exclusive of a market. that's where the nonsense is.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top