Deficit redux

[oldfart]

The Congressional Budget Office issues a monthly budget update on revenues, expenditures, and the resulting surplus or deficit which is based on the figures from the Bureau of the Debt and CBO's own forecasts. Since the fiscal year ends each Sept the fiscal year "official" figures come out this time each year. The lasted can be found at Monthly Budget Review Summary for Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Budget Office.

Basically the report shows that the absolute level of the deficit and the size of the deficit relative to GDP remained stable from 2009 through 2011, and both decreased dramatically for years 2012 through 2014. The deficit as a percentage of GDP decreased from 9.8% to 2.8%. Ironically, both revenue and expenditures as a percentage of GDP at the end of fiscal 2014 were at the average of the period 1975-2014; which means that the budget deficit is exactly where it "normally" should be if normal is defined as the average for the last 40 years. This deficit position is no worse than at the end of the Reagan years.

Now both the absolute deficit and the deficit relative to GDP are projected by CBO to increase starting in 2015 due to demographic changes and long term economic projections, so I would venture that 2014 is the height of the deficit control for this business cycle. I predict that both parties will point with pride and claim this as a victory, while viewing with alarm the trend upward in the future which will be blamed on the opposite party. As both parties were involved in the cooking, both parties share credit or blame. But that won't stop the ideologues on both sides from claiming all success came from their policies and all failures from their opponents'!

 

[Moonglow]

The DOD is screaming for the across the board budget cuts to stop...

 

[Decus]

The CBO projects that the deficit this year will come in at about $500 billion. Yes that does point to a reduction in the budget deficit but our national debt continues to grow and according the CBO our debt will only get worse. In August of this year the CBO made mention of the consequences of our growing debt:

"The large and increasing amount of federal debt would have serious negative consequences, including the following:

• Increasing federal spending for interest payments,
• Restraining economic growth in the long term,
• Giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and
• Eventually increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which investors would demand high interest rates to buy the government's debt)."

An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook 2014 to 2024 Congressional Budget Office

Both parties are fully aware of this, but being able to blame both sides is of little consolation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Congressional Budget Office issues a monthly budget update on revenues, expenditures, and the resulting surplus or deficit which is based on the figures from the Bureau of the Debt and CBO's own forecasts. Since the fiscal year ends each Sept the fiscal year "official" figures come out this time each year. The lasted can be found at Monthly Budget Review Summary for Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Budget Office.

Basically the report shows that the absolute level of the deficit and the size of the deficit relative to GDP remained stable from 2009 through 2011, and both decreased dramatically for years 2012 through 2014. The deficit as a percentage of GDP decreased from 9.8% to 2.8%. Ironically, both revenue and expenditures as a percentage of GDP at the end of fiscal 2014 were at the average of the period 1975-2014; which means that the budget deficit is exactly where it "normally" should be if normal is defined as the average for the last 40 years. This deficit position is no worse than at the end of the Reagan years.

Now both the absolute deficit and the deficit relative to GDP are projected by CBO to increase starting in 2015 due to demographic changes and long term economic projections, so I would venture that 2014 is the height of the deficit control for this business cycle. I predict that both parties will point with pride and claim this as a victory, while viewing with alarm the trend upward in the future which will be blamed on the opposite party. As both parties were involved in the cooking, both parties share credit or blame. But that won't stop the ideologues on both sides from claiming all success came from their policies and all failures from their opponents'!

too 100% stupid as usual. Republicans have tried 30 times to make deficits illegal and Demcorats have killed every effort!! What does that teach the goof liberal.

 

[waltky]

March 2016 deficit twice March 2015...

U.S. posts $108 billion budget deficit in March
Tue Apr 12, 2016 - The U.S. government posted a $108 billion budget deficit in March, more than double the amount from the same period last year, the Treasury Department said on Tuesday.

The government had a deficit of $53 billion in March of 2015, according to the Treasury's monthly budget statement. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a $104 billion deficit for last month.

Accounting for calendar adjustments, March would have shown a $102 billion deficit compared with an adjusted $89 billion deficit in March 2015.

The current fiscal year-to-date deficit was $461 billion, up 5 percent from a $439 billion deficit this time last year. Receipts last month totaled $228 billion, while outlays stood at $336 billion.

U.S. posts $108 billion budget deficit in March

 

[ScienceRocks]

Where is all this money going? Our infrastructure is falling apart, education isn't getting anymore of it then it was 10 years ago and science certainly isn't taking it.

I am concerned that the tax payers are being fucked and getting next to shit for it.

 

[waltky]

Matthew wrote: Where is all this money going? Our infrastructure is falling apart, education isn't getting anymore of it then it was 10 years ago and science certainly isn't taking it.

Takes a lot of money to fight dem jihadis.

 

[Rshermr]

The Congressional Budget Office issues a monthly budget update on revenues, expenditures, and the resulting surplus or deficit which is based on the figures from the Bureau of the Debt and CBO's own forecasts. Since the fiscal year ends each Sept the fiscal year "official" figures come out this time each year. The lasted can be found at Monthly Budget Review Summary for Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Budget Office.

Basically the report shows that the absolute level of the deficit and the size of the deficit relative to GDP remained stable from 2009 through 2011, and both decreased dramatically for years 2012 through 2014. The deficit as a percentage of GDP decreased from 9.8% to 2.8%. Ironically, both revenue and expenditures as a percentage of GDP at the end of fiscal 2014 were at the average of the period 1975-2014; which means that the budget deficit is exactly where it "normally" should be if normal is defined as the average for the last 40 years. This deficit position is no worse than at the end of the Reagan years.

Now both the absolute deficit and the deficit relative to GDP are projected by CBO to increase starting in 2015 due to demographic changes and long term economic projections, so I would venture that 2014 is the height of the deficit control for this business cycle. I predict that both parties will point with pride and claim this as a victory, while viewing with alarm the trend upward in the future which will be blamed on the opposite party. As both parties were involved in the cooking, both parties share credit or blame. But that won't stop the ideologues on both sides from claiming all success came from their policies and all failures from their opponents'!

So the issue, as it always has been, is at what point is the national debt a problem. Got to admit, for the past couple years, I have not been watching the ND as a percentage of GDP. But that, I have believed, is the real concern. I see no real concern at this point about inflation rates, or Hyper Inflation, as alarmists like to worry about. So, what is your thought? Though you know the question is rationally unanswerable.

I believe that the infrastructure issue is truly a rational concern, and that we should have addressed it solidly before now. It seems probable, to me, that our recession that began in 2007-08 would have been much shorter had we addressed it from that point forward as a true stimulant to end the recession, AND that it would likely have had long term beneficial effects on the national debt, and in spurring business expansion. Fact is, it was brought forward a number of times, but voted down by our shortsighted congress.
By the way, did you ever find the pie thread??????

 

[waltky]

Granny says is `cause o' all dem politicians spendin' money we ain't got...

Feds Collect Record Taxes Through November; Still Run $201.8B Deficit
December 12, 2017 - The federal government collected record total tax revenues of $443,715,000,000 in the first two months of fiscal 2018 (Oct. 1, 2017 through the end of November), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Despite these record tax revenues, the federal government still ran a deficit of $201,761,000,000 for those same two months. That is because the government spent $645,476,000,000 in October and November. The $443,715,000,000 that the federal government collected in taxes in the first two months of this fiscal year was $12,873,120,000 more in constant 2018 dollars than it collected in the first two months of fiscal 2017 and $11,352,180,000 more than it collected in the first two months of fiscal 2016.

Prior to this year, the $432,362,820,000 in total taxes (in constant 2018 dollars) that the federal government collected in the first two months of fiscal 2016 was the greatest amount of taxes the federal government had ever collected in the first two months of a fiscal year.

The federal government also set a record for individual income tax collections in the first two months of fiscal 2018. In October and November, the Treasury collected $226,535,000,000 in individual income taxes. Prior to this year, the record for individual income tax collections in the first two months of the fiscal year was the $217,992,000,000 (in constant 2018 dollars) collected in the first two months of fiscal 2017.

Feds Collect Record Taxes Through November; Still Run $201.8B Deficit

See also:

Granny says, "Dat's right - no wonder we inna red...

The new US embassy in London: A crystalline 'sugar cube' worth a billion dollars
— At $1 billion, it is the most expensive embassy ever constructed. But its designers say the new American chancery on the Thames River marks a paradigm shift: The U.S. Embassy here will exude openness while hiding all the clever ways it defends itself from attack.

After decades of building American embassies that look brutalist or bland, like obvious fortresses, the soon-to-be-opened chancery in London is a crystalline cube, plopped down in the middle of a public park, without visible walls. The building does not shout, “Spies work here!” or “Stand back!” even though this city has been subjected to terrorist attacks. Instead, the vibe is modernist museum, which also happens to issue visas and might have a few hidden bunkers somewhere. Instead of blast walls, there is a perimeter pond, with recycled-water waterfalls and deep trenches — and on the roof, arrays of solar panels that will produce enough juice to run the building and give extra watts back to the grid. The building sports frosted- glass walkways, inspirational quotes from the Constitution, neon sculptures, reclaimed teak benches, Cornwall granite, its own subterranean wastewater treatment plant and a dozen gardens in the sky, one representing the flora of the American Midwest.

The new U.S. Embassy in London, pictured Sept. 21 during construction, is across from a park.​

There’s also a pub, a gym, a post office and a posh Marine barracks, with millionaire views all the way to Westminster for the hard-working 19-year-old lance corporals. One assumes there is a CIA station, but that was not on the tour. The media were given a first look inside Wednesday — the embassy will open its doors Jan. 16 — and the early word from the British press was mostly positive. The Evening Standard called the interiors “stunning,” and the Daily Mail said that rather than a slick and hard-edged high rise, the embassy exterior had a “soft and pillowy” feel — because of the plastic polymer veils that drape three sides of the building, enhancing its energy efficiency. This is a far cry from earlier critiques.

The main lobby of the new U.S. Embassy in London.​

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, said in 2010 that the city expected “something a little bit more exciting.” A critic at the Guardian newspaper that year called the pond “a moat” and reported that the two British members of the design jury tried to block the design because it was too boring. They may be proven wrong. The reviews are not yet in. But the building is — if you can say this about an American embassy in 2017 — kind of cool. The U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, Robert “Woody” Johnson, a personal friend of the president and owner of the New York Jets football team, demurred when asked whether President Trump was planning to come early next year on a “working visit” to London and dedicate the opening. “We look forward to welcoming him,” Johnson said, whenever Trump comes. “No date is set,” he said. “He’s a busy president.” There is much speculation about a visit in February.

The Pacific forest garden in the new U.S. Embassy in London.​

Prominent British politicians, including London Mayor Sadiq Khan, have pressed Prime Minister Theresa May to rescind her invitation to Trump. Activists have promised mass demonstrations if the president shows up. At least one parliamentarian has said that Trump ought to be arrested upon arrival. In his remarks, Johnson stuck to the positive. He said, “Little America is moving south of the river,” a new beginning in a formerly rough neighborhood of public housing and old warehouses, now exploding with growth, between the Chelsea and Vauxhall bridges. Johnson confessed that he was a little wistful, though, because there is so much history at the old embassy and its location in Grosvenor Square.

The old embassy, a 1960 modernist gem by Finnish American architect Eero Saarinen, was sold to the real estate division of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, which has gobbled up high-profile London properties, including the Harrods department store. The plan is to turn it into a luxury hotel. The money from its sale, and of other U.S. properties in London, entirely funded the billion-dollar embassy. The building was designed by the firm KieranTimberlake of Philadelphia. James Timberlake said that the job specs for the building were 1,000 pages long. His vision, complex and simple, was to create an embassy at once “welcoming and secure,” measuring a desire to express “transparency, openness, equality” against the need to “filter all and everything and everyone who enter.” Timberlake envisioned a “crystalline cube” because a cube is “efficient and provocative.” He wanted “a radiant beacon,” iconic architecture with interiors “light-filled, airy, with great views,” that was also environmentally outstanding — the 518,000-square-foot, 12-story building will produce more energy than it uses, even after it cares for 800 staff and 1,000 daily visitors.

MORE