U.S. Deficit Increased to $1.3T in Fiscal ’11

'The U.S. government posted its third consecutive annual budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.
The shortfall registered $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011, up from $1.29 trillion in 2010 and the second-highest on record, according to Treasury Department data issued today in Washington. It reached $1.42 trillion in 2009, the highest ever. The September gap widened to $64.6 billion from $34.6 billion in the same month last year.'

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...increased-to-1-3-trillion-in-fiscal-2011.html

 

Any moron can spend WAY more then they have.

What a bunch of economic dufuss's there are in Washington.

 

Politicians found out they can buy votes with deficit spending, without losing vote by raising taxes.

Our kids and grandkids are being taxed without representation..... Tea Party!

 

Considering the debt increased by >$1T in 08, GWB signed TARP which was paid for under Obama's 1st year as well as the stimulus was too, it could be way worse. If you look at it, Obama inherited a $2.5T mess for his first year. GWB's TARP was 700B, stimulus was 800B and the running debt increase was a little over $1T, so that's $2.5T he was going to be in hole and it was only $1.4T his first year? Not bad, as bad as that sounds.

Factor in a dead mortgage and housing market, unemp that had skyrocketed 3% in the year before he took office, a GDP that was 4 of 5 Q's negative and a staock market that had plunged from 14k thru 8k as he took office, bottomed at 6500 and is now 11.5k and you want to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about what? The mess is better off than it would have been had GWB's direcction continued, hard to argue that. The GDP took only 2 Q's to come around and that was due to the stimulus; it's been +++ ever since. Unemp was stemmed in 9 months, shaded off a point and is stuck there, the job's bill needs to be implemented.

All we can err Obama for is the fact he left the tax cuts continue and he stayed with the wars, promnises he made and broke. Had the tax cut expired, yop brkt to 40% again, revs would be higher, jobs would be created and unmp down to a more reasonable yet still high 7%. It wouldn't have been the answer-all, but an improvement.

 

Hey, enough Reagan bashing already.

 

Btw - when I said 'the dufuss's in Washington', I meant botth Dems AND Reps.

And I don't just mean Obama, I mean him and Bush and Clinton and....

I think both parties are beyond useless.

 

and the funny thing is we are supposedly in a recovery, can you imagine how high the deficit will be in the next recession? 2 trillion per anum easy!

 

Therefore we should have **********s? Kind of a segue I'm feelin? The Dems have done well since Wilson, before that they were useless. Getting thru both wars, the Great Depression and fixing the economy every time the R's slam it into the ground, establishing teh 1964 Civil Rts Act and passsing it in contrast to the party of racists, establishing Medicare and SS, we went to the moon under a Democrat's leadership as well as built our nuclear arsenal. Most beneficial things that have happened to this country over the last 100 years happened underr Democratic leadership, most bad things happened under Republican leadership.

Shall we talk about the sociopath GWB and his vetoeing of teh Children's HC Bill? Then after Obama and the Dems got into office it flew thru 2 weeks later. Yea.......

 

This wasn't just a recession, it wasn't far off a depression. Hoover had the same thing happen, he just crossed his arms and watched as unemp hit 25%, teh GDP went into the toilet for years not quarters. So we can't really compare this with the 1990 recession, the recession Reagan/Volkers created by contracting the money supply and driving unemployment to 10.8%. If McSame was elected, we would be revisting the Great Depression once again, as well, had Obama let the tax cuts expire, we would also be toward recovery.

 

incorrect, it was the new deal that made the depression drag on for 10 years!

 

Got America through the Great Depression?

From mid '33 until mid '42; unemployment averaged about 17%, the DOW actually went down and the national debt went WAY up.

I would not call that 'getting through'.

I would call that 'making a pig's breakfast of it'.

And Hoover before him was just as useless.


And getting though the wars? Are you suggesting America would have lost them under a Republican Administration? No chance. America was unbeatable back then - especially in WW2. A very smart dog could have probably run America during those wars and she still would have emerged victorious.

And some of those other things are good. But there is no way to know if another - say a third, more central party - would not have done the exact same things. And possibly sooner.
Or that the Republicans would not have done some of the same things as well were they in power at that time.


Both parties are useless, imo.

And the Tea Party is just (imo) a collection of disgruntled people (some useful, some useless)...they are not a 'party' as far as I am concerned.


No, fundamental change is needed in Washington.

The system and the people that run it.

I think people need more direct representation. I say cut out the middleman/woman as much as possible.

 

What does a pretty departure from a typical Republican induced fiscal mess look like? I guess Clinton did it, of course GHWB set the stage by cutting fascist Ronny's military and slightly raising taxes, and the dotcom boom didn't hurt a thing either, but it took him 5 years to start to turn the corner, 8 years to fully emerge out of it. FDR had Hoover at least raise taxes 9 months before he handed it off to FDR, but it was a little late and altho it helped, it was pretty minimal due to the short time this was done before FDR took it over.

So tell me, what would make you happy? Perhaps shift all the resource to private corporations and let them deccide who lives? The major fisccal messes of teh last 100 years:

- GD from the 3 Republicans fools to FDR

- Fascist Reaganomics carried over to GHWB then dumped onto Clinton

- GWB's total meldown handed off to Obama

So you see, when your guys hammer the dogsh!t out of the economy, you don't get to decide what works and what doesn't, what is a good timeframe for recovery and what isn't. The Repub fascist garbage of the 1920's, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover handed off the country's assets to the rich over 11 years, then Hoover tried to take some back at the end, so it took FDR from 33 until 42 to fix the mess, aided with WWII spending, that's 9 years + Hoovers 1 to fix 11 years of wealth shifting. WHat are you crying about, crybaby? That's not bad, it took less time to fix than it took to ruin it, normally the ruining process is a smaller time span. Just because the dems don't fix it in 2 weeks doesn't mean it's a failed recovery, there are just your fabricated talking points.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

You see how as Hoover raised the tp tax brkt from 25% to 63% the GDP immediately increased and unemp immediately fell? Tax cuts my friends, words of an American sociopath.

Your evidence is zero. 4 of the 5 wars of the 20th century were started under Dem leadership, presidentially and often with a Dem congress. The Republican who started the 5th war was so liberal he was unelected by his own party and that war was under a Democratic congress. Then we move on to the 21st, your cokehead in chief, he totally misspent and screwed that war up, it took a liberal in charge to get OBL. I'm not saying we would have lost with an R inplace, esp if it were Eisenhower, a great president/man/leader. Of course he wasn't typical fiscal neo-fascist garbage of the likes of Reagan and GWB, so wasn't a neo-con but a true great conservative. So how did Nixon do in VN? Yea, he didn't do well. The so-called party of tough has a poor record on war success.

But nice calling the greatest generation and its leadership as smart as a dog. These people save the US as we know it.

So we'll defer to your default theory and accredit the **********/Libertarian movement, and I use the word, "movement" litterally, with those great successes. You have yet to show us how cutting taxes and all social svs has ever done us well, you just keep dragging on with your tired theories. Show me a major federal tax cut taht you can say worked out in an overall good outcome.

We've seen them screw up wars, what is your point? The party of tough is a great big facade.

Right, so we'll kick granny to the curb, deny all social programs, hope the church can pick up the trilion dollar tab and just see what happens. See, I have worked in the aircraft business all my life and if we have a new design idea, we don't just start building it, tooling up, spending millions of dollars, 100's of millions, etc. We use CAD / CAM and other programs to see how it would work in flight, model testing in wind tunnels with dye to watch airflow, turbulence, etc. Then we build a prototype usually and test it. For example, we built the B-1A, they made 2 or 4 I believe and tested them befoe throwing all-in. They crashed one I recall and then they made changes after they were satisfied. The produced 100 B-1B's and that's what we have minus a couple that have crashed.

So use that logic and show me this wholesale tax cutting, chopping of most spending and how it's worked. Use 200 years of history, please show us your ideas and how they've worked well before and ALL of the effects that have spun off of these changes. Oh you won't come back on this one, you'll just keep clammering, like the old senile dude, "TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS."

You're a man w/o a country, you hate the dems, Repubs and **********s. Please don't tell me you're a Libertarian as they're just a nicer version of the **********s. Their fundamentals are virtually identical to the Tea Bags.

That's a circular argument; the people are the change. Also, it's an ad hominem. Quit attacking the author and start to attack the book. True, the book is written by the author, but tell me what we should do about our economy as far as taxes, spending, etc. And if you say to cut much of social programs like SS, Medicare, you also have to detail the social effect. Ever been to Tijuana? Yea, that's what a country w/o a real social system looks like, people begging and dying in the streets. So be sure to detail cause / effect while you're at it, it so easy to say, "CUT TAXES, CUT SPENDING" w/o really understanding all the impact.

SO what you've just described is a TRUE DEMOCRACY which the Dems would support at least in part. http://www.mega.nu/ampp/kaz/democracy.html

At the same time, we need to have courts to override the negative effects of a true Democracy, had we ever adopted one which will never happen. But I agree in whole with your criticism of Representative Deomocracies. Socialist govs are the closest to that, which is why I consider myself a Socialist.

 

Riiiight, even tho the New Deal(s), which fascist Pig Ronnie was a fan of as a kid, pulled us out. Now you can assert your lovley unfounded position until your balls fall off and you'll have my blessing, but you have no data to support that. Not only that, but hypothetically if the New Deals had dragged the GD on, the New Deals saved lives, LITTERALLY GENIUS, is that ok with you or are you a sociopath? Some form of emergency relief was needed I don't care what you call it. Look at Mt Rushmore, those 4 men up there, regardless of party affilaition were not sociopaths such as:

- Most of the Dems pre-Civil War

- Harding, Coolidge, Hoover

- Nixon

- Reagan

- GWB

- others

The men up there stood for people over corporations, such as:

- Teddy Roosevelt stood for consumers and the environment

- Lincoln stood for freedoms of all people

- Washington refused to be appointed a king as he wanted a Democracy

- Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence. Altho he is the least savy of all these, he still was a great man for his time


Corporate pigs are on the bottom of presidential polls, any fascist pig can shift wealth to the rich, it takes a true compassionate to care for people, apparently you adore the former.

 

The deficit for FY 2008 was less than $500B before TARP. The Stimulus was passed under Obama, so you can't blame Bush for that one.

Regardless, why didn't the deficit drop down to Bush's $500B level the year or two after TARP and Stimulus?

 

Whoa...I don't care NEARLY enough about these useless parties to get into some HUGE discussion. No offense intended.
But I will answer a couple:

Anytime.

Any one that cuts taxes equally across the board for all classes...but I know of no such one.

Off the top of my head?

Pull all troops home, cut military by 2/3, end SS for everyone who is under 30 today, corporate tax to zero, capital gains/income tax to one universal rate (except for the poor, they pay nothing), no tax deductions except for charity, end welfare (except for mentally/physically handicapped)-replace with federal government run welfare centers (nice flop houses) in all medium/large cities that provide safe, clean bed, food, local bus/transit pass and medical care, end/severely neuter the Fed, end/severely neuter the FDIC, end Freddie/Fannie, never bailout/loan money to another corporation/bank, reduce remaining government departments by equal % until budget is balanced.

 

I see I have to teach as I go, where's my compensation?

Budget: On budget and off budget. The planned On-budget was like 450Bish, maybe a little more, I could lookit up, but we're not in dispute of that. The off budget, things like those Republican-favorite gifts to Halliburton and such, they added to the off-budget. Then there's the genius behind most recent Republican presidencies; tax receipts that fall off the edge of the cliff thx to "TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS." Yea, so after the whole trainwreck, we end up hammering the debt >$1 trillion; do you dispute that?



09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

And that isn't the worst part, your hero still had almost 3 more months to crap all over the debt, in fact it was $10.626 Trillion as he left (Jan 20, 2009), meaning the debt accrual accellerated at a massive rate ($600B in less than 3 months) and to think, Obama still had to fund GWB's TARP at 700B more.

So we get excited over deficit numbers, that's just the planned amount of debt we're gonna add each year, as we know other than under Clinton and Eisenhower, these plans usually never work out.

Oh, how about unemp rising 3% in just the single year before Obama took office, how about the GDP 4 of 5 Q's negative, the auto industry crashing, banking, mortgage, etc. The stock market crashing thru 8k. I mean, to theink this was a little hiccup is assinine. We were almost done for. Obama inherited a situation where he knew he would add $2.5T+ the very first year and he didn't, I think it was like 1.4t.

- FY 2008 >$1T debt increase

- TARP $700B

- Stimulus $800B

= $2.5T

One reason it wasn't as bad is due to Obama telling the banks that were bailed out, we now own controlling interest, you won't be giving out massive bonuses to yourselves anymore. So they reacted by many of them giving much of it back. As well stimulus spending has a way of some of it coming back via tax receipts. So to add $1.9T the first fiscal year, I think it was 1.4T calandar year, that could be incorrect, research it, but 1.9 is a bonus as to what it could have been, 2.5T.

So aside from all of these numbers and crap, I assume you're a Republican, do you ever wonder why as your party takes a stable or a great economy how they jack it up? I ask this not to incense, but to get a real answer. 3 times in 100 years the Republicans really hacked up the economy, 2 of which the Dems have fixed and Obama is working on the 3rd. They did this all 3 times with tax cuts; disagree? Show me a major federal tax cut that has bettered the economy overall, not in one area and jacked the rest up, but I want a situation where in most areas it was betterred, it might have fallen off in a couple areas, but better in most. Oh and everytime the economy has been fixed, it was by way of tax increases. So tell me the tax cuts that were great ones.

 

First: I agree with helping those that cannot help themselves - especially the homeless/hungry/sick. I agree with (more or less) what FDR did there.


Second:

Great Depression handled with Keynesian School. Result?
From mid '33 until mid '42; unemployment averaged 17+% and the DOW declined (and did not return to pre-crash levels until 1954!) and the national debt skyrocketed.

In comparison:

1920/21 depression/recession generally handled with Austrian School. Result?
Both unemployment and the DOW returned to pre-depression levels in 3.5 years (the unemployment rate in TWO)...and public debt declined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21

Plus: Apparently, America has averaged a recession every 6 years in it's history...and during most of them (to my knowledge) the government more or less stayed out of the way. Certainly FAR less so then FDR did and Bush/Obama did/are.
Result?
Every single recession ended.


Conclusion, recessions/depressions end by themselves.

When governments intervene, they just drag them out for year after year (like in the 1930's and like today - since '08 ).

 

what eneded the depression was WW2......so get ready for another war soon enough. When people are too busy killing each other they have no time for demonstrations....and dont think the people in government haven't been watching what was happening in Egypt and Libya. They know when things get ugly in the economy people demonstrate....and sometimes topple governments!

 

Only because the US was inflicted by conservatism and didn't embrace Keynesianism. It was forced to change by WW2.

Right wingers don't do economics

 

I know you won't agree with this but I really believe governments globally wanted a war during the depression. Why? Too many unemployed young people ( sort of like we have today) young people are the first to demonstrate and overthrow governments as has happened elsewhere. So....send the boys to war....if they are busy killing each other there is no time for riots!

 

World war wasn't wanted and I will certainly say that its cretinous to suggest that it was.

You might not like that the problem with the US was simple conservatism. Tough! I can only refer to the bleedin obvious

 

one only needs to look at Egypt and Libya to see what unemployed young people will do if pushed hard enough....and remember that in the 30's unemployment and homelessness was running rampant world wide!

 

Comparing Egypt and Libya with WW2 is quite ridiculous. We still have a simple fact: the conservative US were forced to adopt Keynesian rationality

 

please do tell how keynessian nonsence helped get us out of the depression? If you are talking the new deal all it did was drag on the depression for many more years....by 1933 the worst of the depression was almost over....but thanks to all the intervention markets were not allowed to make the necessary adjustments so the depression was forced to just drag on and on! Sort of how Japan did in the 90's

 

Get it right now. WW2 forced a Keynesian solution

The New Deal wasn't Keynesian. You've believed the hype; a hype perhaps required for your ideological splurge