PF Exclusive: Debt increase in FY2015 lowest in 14 years

Exactly

Prove that the economic activity was because of the cap gains tax cuts. And then explain how the stock market bubble and subsequent crash wasn't.

do your own research

Prove it.

Prove it.

middle class folks don't live off capital gains and usually have little or none. The really rich guys do.

Spare you from what? The truth that the special tax privileges for the richest mean that guys like Buffet and Romney pay lower rates of taxes than many middle class families?

Not at all. I compare equivalent periods.

No, I compare equivalent periods.

 

So, when presented with more of the facts, there was really no "great news" as suggested in the OP at all.
Imagine what the debt would be/will become when/if interest rates rise.

That, is and always has been my primary focus, but many people and nearly every politician seems to have become obsessed with viewing the GDP as the governments (Federal, State, and local) 'means'.

Then major changes in government functions and programs would be a good start.
While some have suggested that our options are to raise taxes, cut spending, or some of each it is my opinion that our problems can only be solved by lowering taxes and cutting spending.

Our goal should be 'revenue in <= spending' which is nothing more than living within our means.
If we were to balance our budget and reduce the debt owed by $200 billion each year it would take about 100 years to eliminate our debt.
Currently the greatest deterrent to achieving any prudent change is the division created by government between net revenue producing and net revenue consuming citizens.

 

It increase in debt has decreased from prior years, but not as much as appeared with the data available when I wrote the OP. So good news, not great.

GDP is important because it sets the potential for revenues.

Then it would be silly not to increase the means back to at least where it was before, wouldn't it?

We don't need to eliminate it, but lower it relative to GDP.

Currently, the greatest deterrent to achieving any prudent change are the Republicans who are hell bent on pampering the richest instead of rebuilding our middle classes decimated by "trickle down" policy.

 

As my data is updated automatically each time new data appears I'll continue to keep watch, and I'll call it 'good news' when the debt begins to decrease. I'll expect the FY2017 debt increase to be less than $746 billion.

More spending?

I didn't check my writing and it should have been obvious that my terms were reversed. It should have read "Our goal should be 'spending <= revenue in' which is nothing more than living within our means."

We usually accomplish that by inflation/devaluing the dollar.

Yes, there many liberal republicans. The middle class will rebuild itself if only government would get out of our way.

 

Update on the debt. (In US $, not apples or oranges)

FY2016 Mo12 08/31/2016
Public held debt $14,173,423,516,895.82
Intergovernmental $5,400,021,197,040.97
Total Public Debt $19,573,444,713,936.79
Monthly change +$63,148,471,171.13
Cumulative FY2016 +$1,422,827,047,452.46

And now, 1 month into FY2017

FY2017 Mo01 09/31/2016
Public held debt $14,286,500,538,390.57
Intergovernmental $5,519,214,676,251.18
Total Public Debt $19,805,715,214,641.75
Monthly change +$232,270,500,704.96

 

Cherry picking noted again along with the obtuse responses.

 

FY 2016 ended with a debt of $19,573,444,713,936.79 an increase of $1,422,827,047,452.46 from FY 2015


FY 2017 Mo 1 ended with a debt of $19,805,715,214,641.75 an increase of $232,270,500,704.96
and
FY 2017 Mo 2 ended with a debt of $19,948,064,697,245.75 a monthly increase of $142,349,482,604.00 or a total increase of $374,619,983,308.96 for the first two months of FY 2017.

And the Fed is considering raising interest rates. A 5% rate would now result in a $1 trillion debt interest. How much longer can we use inflation to grow the GDP and tax revenue and compete productively in a world market?

 

FY 2016 ended with a debt of $19,573,444,713,936.79 an increase of $1,422,827,047,452.46 from FY 2015


FY 2017 Mo 1 ended with a debt of $19,805,715,214,641.75 an increase of $232,270,500,704.96

FY 2017 Mo 2 ended with a debt of $19,948,064,697,245.75 a monthly increase of $142,349,482,604.00

FY 2017 Mo 3 ended with a debt of $19,976,826,951,047.80 a monthly increase of $28,762,253,802.05 increasing our debt $403,382,237,111.01 during the first three months of FY 2017.

 

FY 2016 ended with a debt of $19,573,444,713,936.79 an increase of $1,422,827,047,452.46 from FY 2015


FY 2017 Mo 1 ended with a debt of $19,805,715,214,641.75 an increase of $232,270,500,704.96

FY 2017 Mo 2 ended with a debt of $19,948,064,697,245.75 a monthly increase of $142,349,482,604.00

FY 2017 Mo 3 ended with a debt of $19,976,826,951,047.80 a monthly increase of $28,762,253,802.05 increasing our debt $403,382,237,111.01 during the first three months of FY 2017.

FY 2017 Mo 4 ended with a debt of $19,937,261,314,503.29 a monthly decrease of $39,565,636,544.51

 

LOL, asking you to prove your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims is "cherry picking."

 

Just remember that today lots of people have become dependent upon government at all levels...for jobs and welfare and commerce. I will guess that for each $100K reduced from overall government spending this equates to the loss of one job. To reduce federal government spending by $100 billion will effectively eliminate 1 million jobs. Those thinking about reducing government spending even more will be eliminating 2-3-4 million jobs. If the private sector does not grow at an equal or higher rate to offset government spending reductions, this is a big hit to the economy.

I'm thinking a better way to approach debt and deficit spending issues is to forget about spending cuts and focus 100% on increasing GDP. Of course there must be new rules in place to prohibit government spending from growing much faster than the economy, but don't stop or lower spending because ultimately this is detrimental to the nation and it's people.

If our GDP can significantly rise this will automatically solve lots of our problems today...

 

most was spent recovering the economy after republicans trashed it

list the top ten spending items of Obama's you disagreed with

 

Does that mean we can never eliminate government jobs or have fewer of them? What does that employee cost the government in unneeded service versus them working in the private sector or even on unemployment? That person becomes available labor for good paying private sector jobs that produce GDP and value to the economy in products and services. Putting human labor to profit to pay their wages and salaries and producing capital for the company to invest and provide a return to the investors who can invest that money in other new ventures or other investments or WOW pay for their own retirements or by a new car or a new house. So where is the economy best served by this labor?

Well that is certainly a key component of it, also getting people back in the labor force. And of course that has been done before, both time when Republicans controlled the Congress. Whenever Democrats control Congress we suffer and lose ground. The policies of both the Republican congress under Clinton and Bush43 practiced the growth the economy thus tax revenues faster than you increase government spending. That includes cuts in spending in targeted areas while maintaining other spending such as Defense spending.

People make these arguments about economic policy using the government spending to GDP ratio as if the government has some claim to a percentage of GDP. We need to grow GDP faster than the equivalent government spending so the government takes less and less of GDP. Just as with percent of income earned by the private sector, grow that faster that government spending and cut tax rates accordingly so that money remains in the private sector.

The question is how you do it and what has proven to do that is tax rate cuts and fewer regulations and welfare reform the concentrates on moving people back INTO the workforce not keeping them on government subsistence and growth that subsistence.

No doubt. I never understood why the Obama administration never came to the realization that putting people back to work not only adds to the GDP and adds to tax revenues but it CUTS government expenses. It's a double whamming on the black side of the column.

 

The economy was in fine shape when the Democrats took the congress and started reveresing course on the policies that helped to mitigate the damage of the 2000/2001 recession giving us 52 months of growth, full employment, rising incomes and soaring tax revenues and a deficit of a paltry $161B. Where exactly was the trashing?

I have no obligation of going to such trouble and it is DEMOCRAT spending of which I contest. Like when the increased spending 9% in FY2008 and then 18% in 2009 and kept it at that level until the Republicans forced sequester which finally cut spending and cut the deficits for which the left tries to give credit to Obama of all people. I object to the Democrats taking the last Republican deficit or $161B to $1,400B in just two years and keeping it over $1,000B for the next 4 years and never even coming close the worst Republican deficit of just $400B for just one year, how about you? You don't object to that?

 

nice try, but you and I both know democrats did not have that much power and Bush had to give the final OK on everything

.

 

Well you're in no position to tell me what I know do you. And no the Democrats had majority government control and being in the driver's seat as far as the budget and spending. Bush was able to hold down the increases they wanted in FY2008 by threatening vetoes but other than than would be a government shutdown and do NOT try to convince me you would have cheered him on in order to stop Democrats spending increases. Then in 2009 they would pass a continuing resolution waiting to see who won the election and after Obama won he and the Congressional leadership put together the Omnibus bill which he signed in 2009 and spending increased 18% that year and the deficit hit $1,400B two years after that last Republican $161B deficit.

But then you've been told all this before.

 

your right, my apologies for assuming you knew that

.

 

So back to your point

Again the Democrats had majority government control and being in the driver's seat as far as the budget and spending. Bush was able to hold down the increases they wanted in FY2008 by threatening vetoes but other than than would be a government shutdown and do NOT try to convince me you would have cheered him on in order to stop Democrats spending increases. Then in 2009 they would pass a continuing resolution waiting to see who won the election and after Obama won he and the Congressional leadership put together the Omnibus bill which he signed in 2009 and spending increased 18% that year and the deficit hit $1,400B two years after that last Republican $161B deficit.

 

Oh I know the spin the left puts on it, now you know the truth.........you're welcome.

 

And the Democrats took over and instead of policies to keep us on top led is over the edge. And residential housing is a small part of GDP.

 

And which policies would the Democrats have to have initiated in the last year of the Bush disaster to have corrected his recession.

 

Why do you claim recessions belong to Presidents? What Bush policies are you claiming caused a recession?

And what could they have passed, first and foremost a bill to extend the Bush tax rates for 10 more years and then a health care reform bill that did not attempt to take over 1/5 of the economy and included huge tax rate increases then they could have lowered corporate tax rates and passed a bill limited new regulations that increased the cost of doing business.