U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII, Before Fiscal Cliff

[AmericanFirst]

I mean look at that graph. From around 92-2000 things were pretty damn good. Then, 2000-2008, it was mostly really bad. Then, around 2010-2011, it picked back upwards.

Why is that?

Because the Republicans had the most congresscritters in the good years?

No. Because we had Bill Clinton in the WH standing in the way of the Republicans doing what they really wanted to do...

...which starting in 2001 we got to find out.

Wrong, clinton benefited from a republican controlled congress and took the credit.

 

[blackhawk]

I read the article linked by the OP basically it was someone who talked a lot but said very little a lot of economic double talk that people can twist to fit any viewpoint they want.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "baseline" was artificially inflated by Tarp and Obama's Failed Stimulus

 

[Samson]

Tell me something, if the deficit has gone down the last three years, why did it go up in 2009?

You do realize it's based on % of GDP, right? Well then 2009 was the biggest drop of all. Did you even check the data in the spreadsheets? Unless you have alternate data, by all means share it. We're not mind readers.

Feel free to point out where I said something was wrong with the data the idiot used. My problem is how he is interpreting the data to present a false impression of the situation.

I thought the comment regarding the GDP was pretty astute: the smaller the GDP, then the larger % change in deficit OVER GDP.

However if you read the article, the blog from investor.com hopes for two basic outcomes:

1. Extension of Bush tax cuts
2. GRADUAL, long term decrease in government spending

 

[Mac1958]

.

Investor's Business Daily is usually a very reliable right wing publication, both in its news and editorials. Pretty surprising to see this piece from them.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do realize it's based on % of GDP, right? Well then 2009 was the biggest drop of all. Did you even check the data in the spreadsheets? Unless you have alternate data, by all means share it. We're not mind readers.

Feel free to point out where I said something was wrong with the data the idiot used. My problem is how he is interpreting the data to present a false impression of the situation.

It's right there in the spreadsheet showing annual deficits as % of GDP. 2009 was the largest negative percentage for any year that there was a deficit since the founding of the country, 10.1%!

The chart doesn't show yearly deficit reductions, it shows three year deficit reductions. Want to point out how you get s single year deficit reduction out of the three year average?

 

[Samson]

A couple of other interesting points from the article:

President Obama hasn't gotten much credit for reining in the deficit, probably because a big part of the deficit progress has come from the unwinding of extraordinary government supports that he helped put in place:

1. Stimulus programs have come and mostly gone;
2. the end of stimulus to states led them to enact Medicaid curbs;
3. jobless benefits in recent months have fallen by 50% since early 2010 (due to both job gains and extended benefits being exhausted).

TARP and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also make the deficit improvement look better, boosting the fiscal '09 deficit by about $200 billion more than in fiscal '12 (though the initial cost of TARP was overstated).

Read More At IBD: U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII, Before Fiscal Cliff - Investors.com

 

[Samson]

.

Investor's Business Daily is usually a very reliable right wing publication, both in its news and editorials. Pretty surprising to see this piece from them.

.

The chart was used as a prop: the IBD blog is attacking it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The deficit did go down in the past 3 years. For real.

Because the tax revenues fell dramatically in 2009. But they started rising again since then.

The labels of that chart are not labelled, it is meaningless.

Ever seen an eye doctor? 'Cause you long overdue.

The X-axis shows a bunch of numbers that one might assume were years, but there is nothing to indicate that assumption is valid, the Y-axis shows numbers in millions of dollars with nothing to indicate what they mean. If I assume that it shows the deficit, which seems reasonable since the top of the chart says FYFSD, I would also have to assume we went from a deficit of somewhere around $400 billion to one of $1.4 trillion in FY2008. Considering that I know the last time the deficit was less than $500 billion was in 2002 I have to admit my assumptions about the graph are wrong, and that it means something else. Feel free to show me where the the chart actually proves me wrong about whatever you think it proves me wrong about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

Investor's Business Daily is usually a very reliable right wing publication, both in its news and editorials. Pretty surprising to see this piece from them.

.

The chart was used as a prop: the IBD blog is attacking it.

Congratulations on actually reading the article.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Investor's Business Daily is usually a very reliable right wing publication, both in its news and editorials. Pretty surprising to see this piece from them.

.

The chart was used as a prop: the IBD blog is attacking it.

Congratulations on actually reading the article.

Well, that would explain it...

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because the Republicans had the most congresscritters in the good years?

No. Because we had Bill Clinton in the WH standing in the way of the Republicans doing what they really wanted to do...

...which starting in 2001 we got to find out.

Wrong, clinton benefited from a republican controlled congress and took the credit.

That's what people think who think Obama was born in Kenya.

 

[ilia25]

The labels of that chart are not labelled, it is meaningless.

Ever seen an eye doctor? 'Cause you long overdue.

The X-axis shows a bunch of numbers that one might assume were years, but there is nothing to indicate that assumption is valid, the Y-axis shows numbers in millions of dollars with nothing to indicate what they mean. If I assume that it shows the deficit, which seems reasonable since the top of the chart says FYFSD, I would also have to assume we went from a deficit of somewhere around $400 billion to one of $1.4 trillion in FY2008. Considering that I know the last time the deficit was less than $500 billion was in 2002 I have to admit my assumptions about the graph are wrong, and that it means something else. Feel free to show me where the the chart actually proves me wrong about whatever you think it proves me wrong about.

I'm sorry for poking fun at your eyesight.

It still baffles me why someone would question a chart w/o checking the numbers first? The US deficit was not always growing. In particular, it started to shrink again after peaking in 2002-ish. It dropped to under 200 billions before the last recession started in 2008.

 

[konradv]

Feel free to point out where I said something was wrong with the data the idiot used. My problem is how he is interpreting the data to present a false impression of the situation.

It's right there in the spreadsheet showing annual deficits as % of GDP. 2009 was the largest negative percentage for any year that there was a deficit since the founding of the country, 10.1%!

The chart doesn't show yearly deficit reductions, it shows three year deficit reductions. Want to point out how you get s single year deficit reduction out of the three year average?

Your problem is that you keep looking at the chart. Look at the numbers. They're there in black and white with no interpretation needed.

 

[konradv]

Did anyone bother to click on and check out this link? If the charts are unclear or confusing, here's the hard data.

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ever seen an eye doctor? 'Cause you long overdue.

The X-axis shows a bunch of numbers that one might assume were years, but there is nothing to indicate that assumption is valid, the Y-axis shows numbers in millions of dollars with nothing to indicate what they mean. If I assume that it shows the deficit, which seems reasonable since the top of the chart says FYFSD, I would also have to assume we went from a deficit of somewhere around $400 billion to one of $1.4 trillion in FY2008. Considering that I know the last time the deficit was less than $500 billion was in 2002 I have to admit my assumptions about the graph are wrong, and that it means something else. Feel free to show me where the the chart actually proves me wrong about whatever you think it proves me wrong about.

I'm sorry for poking fun at your eyesight.

It still baffles me why someone would question a chart w/o checking the numbers first? The US deficit was not always growing. In particular, it started to shrink again after peaking in 2002-ish. It dropped to under 200 billions before the last recession started in 2008.

The deficit was going down even though Bush cut taxes and was fighting two wars using credit cards?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's right there in the spreadsheet showing annual deficits as % of GDP. 2009 was the largest negative percentage for any year that there was a deficit since the founding of the country, 10.1%!

The chart doesn't show yearly deficit reductions, it shows three year deficit reductions. Want to point out how you get s single year deficit reduction out of the three year average?

Your problem is that you keep looking at the chart. Look at the numbers. They're there in black and white with no interpretation needed.

You have two problems here. One is that, it you are going to insist the deficit went down in 2009 then, it must have been because of Bush. (Come to think of it, the repayment of TARP, and the fact that the total cost of TARP was overestimated, is the primary reason the deficit in 2009 wasn't higher, so I guess Bush did a much better job than you like to pretend.) The second is that Obama signed a $800 billion stimulus package in 2009 that more than doubled the deficit from 2008.

 

[ilia25]

The X-axis shows a bunch of numbers that one might assume were years, but there is nothing to indicate that assumption is valid, the Y-axis shows numbers in millions of dollars with nothing to indicate what they mean. If I assume that it shows the deficit, which seems reasonable since the top of the chart says FYFSD, I would also have to assume we went from a deficit of somewhere around $400 billion to one of $1.4 trillion in FY2008. Considering that I know the last time the deficit was less than $500 billion was in 2002 I have to admit my assumptions about the graph are wrong, and that it means something else. Feel free to show me where the the chart actually proves me wrong about whatever you think it proves me wrong about.

I'm sorry for poking fun at your eyesight.

It still baffles me why someone would question a chart w/o checking the numbers first? The US deficit was not always growing. In particular, it started to shrink again after peaking in 2002-ish. It dropped to under 200 billions before the last recession started in 2008.

The deficit was going down even though Bush cut taxes and was fighting two wars using credit cards?

Yes. Of course the deficits never went to zero even at the height of the housing bubble, when the economy was at its peak.

And those deficits happened instead of trillions of dollars in surpluses that were projected when Bush took the office. So his tax cuts and wars did cost us many trillions in additional debt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry for poking fun at your eyesight.

It still baffles me why someone would question a chart w/o checking the numbers first? The US deficit was not always growing. In particular, it started to shrink again after peaking in 2002-ish. It dropped to under 200 billions before the last recession started in 2008.

The deficit was going down even though Bush cut taxes and was fighting two wars using credit cards?

Yes. Of course the deficits never went to zero even at the height of the housing bubble, when the economy was at its peak.

And those deficits happened instead of trillions of dollars in surpluses that were projected when Bush took the office. So his tax cuts and wars did cost us many trillions in additional debt.

My problem with that is the way they borrow money from Social Security and claim they aren't increasing the deficit at the same time.

 

[Care4all]

The chart doesn't show yearly deficit reductions, it shows three year deficit reductions. Want to point out how you get s single year deficit reduction out of the three year average?

Your problem is that you keep looking at the chart. Look at the numbers. They're there in black and white with no interpretation needed.

You have two problems here. One is that, it you are going to insist the deficit went down in 2009 then, it must have been because of Bush. (Come to think of it, the repayment of TARP, and the fact that the total cost of TARP was overestimated, is the primary reason the deficit in 2009 wasn't higher, so I guess Bush did a much better job than you like to pretend.) The second is that Obama signed a $800 billion stimulus package in 2009 that more than doubled the deficit from 2008.

FYI-
the deficit in FISCAL 2009 was nearly 1.4 trillion....due to TARP, several bailouts of goldman sachs, fannie, freddie, auto industry, etc etc etc and because we collected 600 billion less in revenues than President Bush estimated in his fiscal 2009 budget....which was estimated to have a $500-$600 billion dollar deficit BEFORE the wall street, housing crash and those bailouts....and drawing less revenues.

ONLY $150- $200 billion of the fiscal 2009 budget can be attributed to what Obama signed/passed INCLUDING THE STIMULUS....which was spread out over 2 years....so your last ''line'' of the previous post is absolutely incorrect as well...

We are in fiscal 2013 right now, in case you didn't know....and Obama's FIRST fiscal budget as president was for fiscal 2010.