It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Under Democrats US Deficit is down 8%

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
www.reuters.com...


The U.S. federal budget deficit in the first half of fiscal 2010 is down 8 percent from the same period a year ago, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

Citing senior Obama administration officials, the Washington Post said in an article posted on its website the smaller deficit was due to higher tax revenue and lower than projected spending to bail out the financial system.

The newspaper said if the trend continued for the rest of the year it would mean the annual deficit would be $1.3 trillion -- about $300 billion less than the administration's projection two months ago for 2010.



While this is not some great drop and is still beyond horrifying for our nation, it is still a rather good sign for the economy. It just shocks me that with the Stimulus, Unemployment Extension, State Jobs bill, etc... The Deficit went down 8% anyway. That is truly a shock to me.

We all know that under Democrats the deficit usually goes down... even if it is just 8%.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Well it's because the stimulus put money back in the hands of Americans, which they were then able to pay back in taxes.

Of course, our debt is still massive. But we need to lower our deficit and get a surplus before we can start paying off the debt, so it's obvious the stimulus is actually moving us in the right direction. (I know many who could argue that we didn't give ENOUGH money during the stimulus, which is why unemployment hasn't gone much down.)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 

Explanation: S&F!

But... but... isn't money created by racking up huge debt both foreign [china] and domestic [the FedResrv]?


Won't the US being frugal mean there is less money being created and with over 330million people, surely the population will increase [or will it?
], and therefor, just where is the money for these new citizens going to come from?

If the US gets outa the debt designed U$D creation scam its got going... where does that leave the global economy?



Personal Disclosure: Robbing peter to pay paul... is FAIL! :shk:



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


and ?

i am not an ecconomist - but my understanding of the federal deficit is that is simply the difference between federal income and expenditure

and any idiot can reduce it - at the expence of the national debt OR selling off assets

so what impact does this have on the national debt - and what has been sold off to " pay for " this meaningless statistic ????????????



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Wow.... Democrats didn't spend as much in 2010 as they did in 2009. I'm impressed.

Here's a little more information for you:

Aggregated from:
Federal deficit in relation to GDP
Total spending in relation to GDP

FYear | GrDmPr | Def % | total spending % of GDP
2008 | 14441.4 | 03.18 | 20.65
2009 | 14258.2 | 09.91 | 24.67
2010 | 14623.9 | 10.64 | 25.44

FYear= Fiscal Year
GrDmPr= Gross Domestic Product
Def %= Deficit in relation to GDP

Maybe they're not spending as much, but they're spending increasingly higher percentages in relation to the gross domestic product. Not very sound economic behavior.


edit on 9/13/2010 by abecedarian because: re-format



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Sorry...I find this meaningless.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


This is ludicrous. This is a good sign? They spent money like drunken sailors on leave last year and they've done the same thing this year - the expenditures they put us on the hook for this year didn't roll up on us in the first half - thats all. An 8% improvement - my ass. This is also the deficit (the difference between spend vs intake). This is not the debt - that thing is still climbing up in to outer space. This is an insane article.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Lies.

Sorry. Couldn't help mysel......LIES!

Sorry again.


Err.


The fact that they didn't "Spend as much as they had PROJECTED" doesn't mean they reduced anything.

It means that they didn't spend as much as they planned ....yet.

They haven't reduced a dammned thing.

I need a beer.


edit on 13-9-2010 by badgerprints because: I didn't actually edit anything. Just thought I'd fill in this little box with a few useless bits of non information. Thank god they've provided these little boxes to make sure we explain why we changed things huh? I mean, it's not as if I were able to go back later and claim to have predicted the lottery outcome by editing in the numbers. Without a winning ticket a lottery prediction is pretty useless dont you think?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
The economy could totally tank and GDP drop to ZERO and if the Democrats spent a billion less than the year before they would hail that a victory.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
But of course.

The Republican Party has ALWAYS increased the deficit, especially since Ronald Reagan. Each succeeding Republican president has added more.

The deficit ALWAYS is reduced under Democrats. Case in point: President Clinton creating a budget surplus out of the massive deficits of the Reagan years.

But despite the evidence, for some reason the gullible public falls time and time again for the Republicans' representation of themselves as the fiscally conservative party and the Democrats as the party of big spenders.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Budget surplus is meaningless if it's not applied to the national debt.

And mostly, the only thing that helped clinton out was closing military bases... oh, that and the coming to fruition the republican policies put in place under Reagan. I mean, if Obama inherited this economy from Bush, Bush inherited his from Clinton and Clinton from Bush before and Reagan.



edit on 9/13/2010 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Well put and you have a valid or at least arguable point.

That being said.....they haven't reduced the deficit.


If we at ats said we were going to spend a billion dollars on a new members training and recruitment program, then turned around and said "Nope! Not gonna do it. Gonna spend half a billion to provide tinfoil hats to the masses"....would Springer have an extra half billion in his pocket?

Noooo.

It's all going to the super secret conspiracy disruption czar who was just appointed to make sure you and I don't voice dissent with the news report about the half billion that we saved on the Tinfoil headgear initiative.

It's all so clear now.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


If you run the deficit up in the first year, as the Democrats did, then reduce it by as much the following year, then that's not a victory. What have you really accomplished? You're back where you started.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by black cat
reply to post by Sestias
 


If you run the deficit up in the first year, as the Democrats did, then reduce it by as much the following year, then that's not a victory. What have you really accomplished? You're back where you started.



I think you meant "If you run the deficit up one year, then up more the next and then up more than the previous 8 years in the third, then reduce it some the fourth year, that's not a victory."



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I am sorry, however, this news was from the first half of the year... I will reserve judgment until after the dismal holiday season...

Also this was today's news. Not too encouraging.

U.S. dollar hits fresh 15-year low versus Japanese yen

www.marketwatch.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 


Remember they're referencing the Federal fiscal year, which runs from October 1 through September 30, not the typical calendar year.. So although we're not at the end of FY 2010, we're close enough for them to make a guesstimation.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
The deficit ALWAYS is reduced under Democrats. Case in point: President Clinton creating a budget surplus out of the massive deficits of the Reagan years.


"Budget surplus" is just another way of saying they're keeping our money for future pet projects. Why don't we ever get our tax dollars back during a surplus? If our money is being hoarded by the government as a surplus, why is that a good thing?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Duh... I am usually smarter than that, too, and especially since as a military dep, we live at the whims of the fed budget. Oh well. Hahahaha... it will be a crap holiday season for most of America, though.

But the info was from the first half of the fiscal year, regardless. Let's see how the rest of it panned out for them when it is released... I believe that those stats came out in April.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
www.reuters.com...


The U.S. federal budget deficit in the first half of fiscal 2010 is down 8 percent from the same period a year ago, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

Citing senior Obama administration officials, the Washington Post said in an article posted on its website the smaller deficit was due to higher tax revenue and lower than projected spending to bail out the financial system.

The newspaper said if the trend continued for the rest of the year it would mean the annual deficit would be $1.3 trillion -- about $300 billion less than the administration's projection two months ago for 2010.



While this is not some great drop and is still beyond horrifying for our nation, it is still a rather good sign for the economy. It just shocks me that with the Stimulus, Unemployment Extension, State Jobs bill, etc... The Deficit went down 8% anyway. That is truly a shock to me.

We all know that under Democrats the deficit usually goes down... even if it is just 8%.


Cool! Last week I bought a car I couldn't afford. I spent thirty thousand bucks on it, even though my old car was fine. This week, I didn't buy another one. So my week to week deficit is down 50%! I'm doing great!

I didn't really buy a car. My old one is just fine, and I won't get another one until I actually need it. And I'll probably only get a 20K car, even then. But, I hope you get my point. Statistics can be very misleading. Here's an article I wrote a decade or so ago, about that, when a headline in the Cincinnati Enquirer cam out warning us that the smell of baking bread was destroying the ozone.

This one is substantially the same as what I wrote originally. There are dozens of versions on the internet now though. FWIW, Snopes pegged it exactly. I made it all up. But, you can look that up for yourself, if you are interested.

www.anvari.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Thread title is wrong and missleading..

Actual title from site was,


U.S. deficit down in first half 2010: report


The deficit is NOT down by 8% or even .0008% !!!!!

Way to twist the accounts, you should run for office




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join