U.S. deficit falls to $680 billion [W:599]

[a351]

Treasury: $680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30, 2013

At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

As a percent of the economy, it's also considerably smaller than it's been in the past five years, coming in at 4.1% of gross domestic product. By contrast, the annual deficit in 2009 topped 10% of GDP. And last year it was 6.8%.
Overall, Treasury said higher receipts accounted for 79% of the decline in the deficit from last year.

Surely a large step in the right direction. Hopefully the current budget negotiations will seek to further close the gap in a responsible manner. Given further economic improvement, the 2016 elect might just be saddled with a far more manageable fiscal scenario than many would have envisioned.

 

[azgreg]

Thank you sequester.

 

[a351]

Thank you sequester.

Bolded for emphasis.

At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

As a percent of the economy, it's also considerably smaller than it's been in the past five years, coming in at 4.1% of gross domestic product. By contrast, the annual deficit in 2009 topped 10% of GDP. And last year it was 6.8%.
Overall, Treasury said higher receipts accounted for 79% of the decline in the deficit from last year.

 

[Kushinator]

:laughat:

Thank you sequester.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Thank you sequester.

Just thought this should be bumped for emphasis.

 

[Kushinator]

Just thought this should bumped for emphasis.

Why? It's a most ridiculous comment!

 

[azgreg]

:laughat:

OK, you're right. The sequester had no effect. smh

 

[Kushinator]

OK, you're right. The sequester had no effect. smh

False dichotomy.

When did i say it had no effect? That's right, i didn't.

 

[head of joaquin]

Once again, economic growth -- as evidenced by increased tax revenue -- is the key to dealing with deficits. It's how we dealt with the huge post WWII debt. And the debt incurred in Vietnam. And the Reagan military build up debt.

But this won't stop the debt fetishists from trying to strangle growth by cutting spending at a time when it is still counteracting the deflationary effects of Bush's Meltdown.

 

[head of joaquin]

OK, you're right. The sequester had no effect. smh

Anything that cuts the dead weight of military spending on the economy has a positive effect. But we can do that without a sequester, which cuts spending that is assisting in aggregate demand.

It's like praising surgery to remove a cancerous mole that cut off a patient's arm.

 

[azgreg]

False dichotomy.

When did i say it had no effect? That's right, i didn't.

Your cute little emoticon implied that my comment was irrelevant.

 

[Kushinator]

Your cute little emoticon implied that my comment was irrelevant.

Because you ignored the OP, which directly quoted the composition of budget reduction causes. Sequestration accounts for exactly how much (be careful)?

 

[Fisher]

False dichotomy.

When did i say it had no effect? That's right, i didn't.

since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.

 

[azgreg]

Because you ignored the OP, which directly quoted the composition of budget reduction causes. Sequestration accounts for exactly how much (be careful)?

The CBO estimates $42 billion.

 

[Kushinator]

since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.

You can't have your cake and eat it too! The Bush days are long gone. Reducing the deficit primarily via spending cuts will reduce economic growth more significantly than raising tax revenue. Or do you deny the current state of the economy?

 

[head of joaquin]

since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.

Let's unpack this.

1. The premise is false, of course. Under the Obama administration taxes on most Americans have gone down or stayed the same. The package of cuts and increases is complex, involving several interrelated laws (including ACA) but there is no indication the effective rates of most Americans have changed.

2. The conclusion that raising taxes to increase revenue is somehow appalling is argument by labels. Raising taxes is generally a good way to raise revenues, and generally you should tax people who make a lot of money. It sort of follows and it's what has happened.

3. Your faux concern for workers is, well, faux.

 

[Kushinator]

The CBO estimates $42 billion.

$42 billion out of.... $420 billion. And you mentioned sequestration why exactly?

 

[head of joaquin]

The CBO estimates $42 billion.

Since that's just ten percent of the amount at issue, shouldn't you have thanked the tax increase on the rich and the stimulus which at the very least kept the economy from totally tanking? The study seems to indicate that that's were the budget reduction comes from -- increased tax revenues.

Your gratitude seems tendentious.

 

[azgreg]

$42 billion out of.... $420 billion. And you mentioned sequestration why exactly?

I just mentioned one. Didn't feel like typing for 3 hours listing all the reasons for the numbers. Go ahead yourself if you want to though. Knock yourself out.

 

[Fisher]

You can't have your cake and eat it too! The Bush days are long gone. Reducing the deficit primarily via spending cuts will reduce economic growth more significantly than raising tax revenue. Or do you deny the current state of the economy?

Deny what part of the current state of the economy? That the median household income is falling and that employment is stagnant? Maybe it is that the stock-market prices are artificially inflated and that bond bubble being created by QE will screw us. Is that it? Bush shouldn't have saved the stockmarket and neither should have Obama.

 

[Kushinator]

Raising taxes is generally a good way to raise revenues, and generally you should tax people who make a lot of money. It sort of follows and it's what has happened.

They are blinded by economic logic.

If you increase taxes on someone who generally has a high savings rate, it will reduce their economic activity in proportion to someone with a low savings rate. Wait, that's not true at all.

 

[a351]

since the democrats raised taxes on every worker in America, I don't see how revenues couldn't have increased.

Important to note that the payroll tax cut merely expired, and its potential continuation received no support whatsoever from the right during the new years eve budget negotiations.

 

[head of joaquin]

I just mentioned one. Didn't feel like typing for 3 hours listing all the reasons for the numbers. Go ahead yourself if you want to though. Knock yourself out.

I don't know what's worse: making a disingenuous post about why the deficit has fallen, or defending it as a mere mention when in fact the debt fetishism was clear.

 

[Fisher]

Important to note that the payroll tax cut merely expired, and its potential continuation received no support whatsoever from the right during the new years eve budget negotiations.

So we can shut down the government to get deadbeats freebies but not workers 2%?

 

[head of joaquin]

They are blinded by economic logic.

If you increase taxes on someone who generally has a high savings rate, it will reduce their economic activity in proportion to someone with a low savings rate. Wait, that's not true at all.

That's their story and they're sticking to it.