US budget deficit edges higher in October.

The US debt is predicted to exceed $20 Trillion by the time Obama leaves office in 2017. It is disgraceful that unemployment is now down to 5% but the budgets are still in deficit in the amount of around $ 450 Billion a year.

While Obama is blameworthy for this, the GOP is equally blameworthy because with their congress majority GOP has achieved nothing.

In other words while Obama has been running a budget deficit the GOP has been running an achievement deficit and achieved nothing but a surplus in pointless and inane political blathering.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-edges-higher-in-october-1447354803

 

Revenues are outpacing expenditures by 3% and we still run deficit. I blame my math teacher, who failed to splain to me how this is possible.

 

meh, our debt really isn't that high. It's high, but it's been higher in the past, and the sky didn't fall back then either.

 

Nope, there is no end to budget deficits, not unless spending is curtailed and revenues grow. A combination of the two would be preferable however cutting spending is a challenge considering the relatively small portion of the budget which comprises non defense discretionary spending, about 17% of the budget. Since 1960 I think there has only been 6 FY's showing a surplus? 1960, 1969, and 1998 thru 2001.

 

we don't really ever need a surplus, all we need is for our debt to grow as quickly (or as slowly) as our GDP. It's debt to gdp ratio that matters. Not debt itself.

 

Unless both parties work together dont expect much change. Both parties have their pet expenditures that they wont touch.

 

In an ideal world, breaking even and/or a tiny wee surplus if far preferable to running deficits year after year. I get the relationship to GDP, which is why revenues need to be boosted, I think they have fallen behind the historical ratio to GDP?

 

Not really. In the ideal world, we would run a small deficit year after year. Running surplus is not healthy either, since over time, it would result in a negative debt to gdp ratio, which is bad as well.

Or current debt to gdp ratio is around 100, which is high, but it was 120 in the 1940's which was actually quite a good time, economically for the US, thus demonstrating that high debt has nothing to do with economic prosperity.

Politicians love to use our debt to scare people into voting for their policies (ie social program cuts if you're a republicans, tax increases if you're a democrat), but in reality, high debt, in itself, isn't that big a deal.

 

Yes there is an end just as we lowered them before and actually produced surpluses.

Keep tax rates low, restrain spending increases, full employment with high labor participation rates.

 

You forgot the % sign. "... current debt to gdp ratio is around 100%, which is high, but it was 120%..."

 

keeping tax rates low will diminish revenue, thus increasing debt
and you cant just fiat full employment.

you're right though, the end is in sight. our debt is already leveling off, thanks to Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

ok my bad

 

I'd be in prison if I ran my finances like the feds. The 10th Amendment needs to be enforced. Any expenditure by the feds needs to be specifically approved by the Constitution. Otherwise, they should be handled by states, local governments, or individuals.

 

Mope they keep growth strong which increases revenue. We collected double the capital gains revenues at rbe Republican 15% rate than the Democrat 29% rate. Tax revenue soared after the Bush income tax rates were fully implimented.

Why thank Obama? Be opposed sequester after be and his fellow Democrats j creased spending 9% and then 18% taking the last Republican deficit of a paltry $161B to a shopping $1,400B in just two years.

 

bingo right on the target we gave our GDP away to Mexico nafta starting with NWO bush sr
and china in the 1990s and japan in the 1980s buying there autos

 

interstate commerce biatch! LOL.

 

actually, many foreign autos are made in the US, so they still count towards US GDP.

 

actually, tax rates are already at historic lows.
View attachment 39543
by your logic, we should be having record surpluses. But we're not.
So clearly, your argument isn't valid.

Simple - if you look at the debt to GDP ratio--it was rising fairly quickly before Obama took office and now, it's leveling off. You can throw out all the numbers you want but none of them matter. Debt to GDP ratio is the ONLY one that matters.

 

The first populist politician that runs on cutting failed government programs and agencies and giving the money back to voters will be elected with a super majority, and both government and debt will shrink faster than sizzling bacon on a very hot grill.

 

Doubtful. That has never happened in the history of the US. Governments only increase in size; they never decrease.

Bacon, by the way, has been found to be just as carcinogenic as cigarettes. I would avoid, if I were you.

 

Governments never shrink because no politician has ever dared to propose that the savings from cuts be refunded to the voters.

Goes against the grain - doesn't it.

 

Except that you can't really tie specific spending cuts to specific tax cuts, cause they're really separate things.

I mean you can cut a specific program and then cut a specific tax, but there's nothing logically holding those two things together. You could do either, neither, or both. And so your logic doesn't really work.

 

Well, we spend most of our money on bombs and old people. Which gets cut?

 

To hell with tax cuts.

Cut government - divert the river of revenue away from the government to the voters. Instant super majority.

Would you give back your refund check?

 

Because the Democrats increased spending 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009. And that is only corporate tax rates which we are the highest in the world making us less competitive hampering the growth that would increase that income and the hiring that would produce more tax payers.

Interesting trivia, now why thank Obama and be specific this time.

Again an interesting number but US government debt is not locked to GDP nor does the government have a claim to a certain percentage of GDP. The goal should be to grow the economy and GDP faster than government spending and debt so that ration gets lower and lower and lower.

And BTW the spending has been cut due to sequester for which Obama BLAMES the Republicans so why do you attempt to credit him for it?

 

We spend most of our money funding a vast and expanding government class. It is apparently the human way.

The bombs, the elderly, the poor, the children ... are just the excuse. They all inevitable get the short end of the stick.