PDA

View Full Version : US Budget Deficit Hits New Records ($1 Trillion and Counting...)




Unspeaked
Jun 10, 2009, 02:28 PM
The part I bolded sounds especially harsh...

LINK (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Budget-deficit-hits-record-apf-15492054.html)


Budget deficit hits record for May of $189.7B

Martin Crutsinge

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal budget deficit soared to a record for May of $189.7 billion, pushing the tide of red ink close to $1 trillion with four months left in the budget year.

The rising deficit reflects increased government spending due to the recession, and billions of dollars spent on bailouts for banks and other troubled companies.

The Treasury Department reported Wednesday that the red ink so far this year totals $991.9 billion. The administration is projecting the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1, will total an all-time record of $1.84 trillion. That would be more than four times the amount of last year's record deficit.

Because of the recession, spending has increased for benefit programs such as unemployment compensation and food stamps.

Outlays also have risen because of the $787 billion economic stimulus package that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress earlier this year.

The new Treasury report showed government spending totals a record $2.37 trillion through the first eight months of the budget year, 18 percent more than the year-ago period.

At the same time, the economic downturn has cut into tax revenues. The report showed that government receipts total $1.67 trillion through the May, down 18 percent from last year. Rising unemployment and struggling businesses have meant a drop in both income and corporate taxes.

Last month's imbalance compared with a $20.9 billion deficit in April, the first time that happened in 26 years. April is a month when the government normally runs surpluses reflecting tax payments.

The $991.9 billion deficit so far this budget year is more than triple the amount of red ink incurred during the year-ago period.

Under the administration's budget estimates, the $1.84 trillion deficit for this year will be followed by a $1.26 trillion deficit in 2010, and will never dip below $500 billion over the next decade. The administration estimates the deficits will total $7.1 trillion from 2010 to 2019.

Economists are worried that such large borrowing needs could trigger steep increases in interest rates if domestic and foreign investors start demanding a higher return for holding Treasury debt.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner traveled to Beijing last week to reassure officials in China, the single-largest holder of U.S. Treasury debt, that the administration is serious about getting control of the deficits once the current downturn and financial crisis have passed.



Desertrat
Jun 10, 2009, 11:22 PM
"...the administration is serious about getting control of the deficits once the current downturn and financial crisis have passed."

And his audience reacted by giving him a Ten! on the laugh-o-meter.

Note the lack of trust/faith in the US Govt: 30-year bonds are now up to 5.875%. Two weeks ago? 4.625%. Nobody wants our long-term paper. The three-year paper is about all that's viable.

Obamanomics is becoming a reprise of Carter. There are all manner of guesses as to when the consumer price inflation will accelerate. It's coming; the discussions are about the when, not the whether.

Iscariot
Jun 10, 2009, 11:24 PM
I blame Sasha for getting knocked up at a baseball game.

Whoops, wrong thread.

zap2
Jun 10, 2009, 11:26 PM
"...the administration is serious about getting control of the deficits once the current downturn and financial crisis have passed."

And his audience reacted by giving him a Ten! on the laugh-o-meter.
.

You keep saying this in lot and lots of thread, then we give you his plan that he has clearly laid out to cut spending over the long term.

Its becoming clear to me you aren't interested in giving him an honest chance(in a period long enough to do something)

If at the end of four year(and we'll the parts of his plan falling together sooner then that), spending isn't under control more so then it is today, then you may have a point. But until then, there just haven't been time to really see what Obama's gonna do under normal circumstances.

mactastic
Jun 10, 2009, 11:27 PM
I thought deficits didn't matter (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp).

obeygiant
Jun 11, 2009, 12:14 AM
I thought deficits didn't matter (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp).

I guess the don't when they're only 412 Billion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/outlook.html), when that article was written in 2005.

hulugu
Jun 11, 2009, 12:17 AM
You keep saying this in lot and lots of thread, then we give you his plan that he has clearly laid out to cut spending over the long term.

Its becoming clear to me you aren't interested in giving him an honest chance(in a period long enough to do something)

If at the end of four year(and we'll the parts of his plan falling together sooner then that), spending isn't under control more so then it is today, then you may have a point. But until then, there just haven't been time to really see what Obama's gonna do under normal circumstances.

Well, there's is the argument that Obama's plan could have long-term consequences. Of course, there's also the argument that had he done nothing or simply not enough the economy would have tubed and we'd really be in trouble. Depending on the economic theory and big-thinker we have different opinions, but at this point it's time to deal with the consequences as best we can, as reasonably as we can.

'Rat may ultimately be correct, especially if Niall Ferguson in his sparring with Paul Krugman turns out to be right. It's clear that 30-years of bad decisions and poor policy have helped lead us to this point and expecting to escape the consequences of such actions in an instant, or even over a single presidency, seems silly. Even if Obama gets 8-years to work, he may only see a glimmer of whether or not his policies actually worked.

jjahshik32
Jun 11, 2009, 12:22 AM
Actually our real deficit in derivatives is over 500 trillion dollars. But yes the feds have monetized the trillion dollars already.

fivepoint
Jun 11, 2009, 08:20 AM
'Rat may ultimately be correct, especially if Niall Ferguson in his sparring with Paul Krugman turns out to be right. It's clear that 30-years of bad decisions and poor policy have helped lead us to this point and expecting to escape the consequences of such actions in an instant, or even over a single presidency, seems silly.

ABSOLUTELY. Although, 30 years is a bit short. It all started with the progressive movement and FDR.

racers
Jun 11, 2009, 10:00 AM
Actually our real deficit in derivatives is over 500 trillion dollars. But yes the feds have monetized the trillion dollars already.

Source?

mactastic
Jun 11, 2009, 10:11 AM
I guess the don't when they're only 412 Billion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/outlook.html), when that article was written in 2005.
Hmm... I don't recall any qualifiers being added that that assertion. Do you?

ABSOLUTELY. Although, 30 years is a bit short. It all started with the progressive movement and FDR.
Indeed, we never had any fiscal problems prior to progressives and FDR, hmmm?

obeygiant
Jun 11, 2009, 10:51 AM
Hmm... I don't recall any qualifiers being added that that assertion. Do you?


No, but I think a $1.8 Trillion (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/white_house_budget_deficit_to.html) deficit and its relationship to a shirinking GDP (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ad5QN8Oo7QpA) in itself is its own qualifier.

mactastic
Jun 11, 2009, 10:55 AM
No, but I think a $1.8 Trillion (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/white_house_budget_deficit_to.html) deficit and its relationship to a shirinking GDP (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ad5QN8Oo7QpA) in itself is its own qualifier.
Key words: You think. Because that's not what was said, was it?

obeygiant
Jun 11, 2009, 11:22 AM
Key words: You think. Because that's not what was said, was it?

You mean in the 4 year old article from the Weekly Standard you posted? I must have missed when that neo-con magazine now speaks for all people who oppose what to them appears to be an unhealthy deficit.

Really if I was Obama knowing what he knows I can't say I'd have done different. In my micro-economic world, I have a comfortable ratio between my cash flow and my debts. I could take out a million dollar loan to expand everything, but that type of commitment with interest has a risk of imploding everything I've worked for, so I don't do it.

Any sane person should view a mounting deficit like the current one with some concern. Its not at all out of the ordinary to be concerned or at least somewhat alarmed at a staggering amount of money.

mactastic
Jun 11, 2009, 12:43 PM
You mean in the 4 year old article from the Weekly Standard you posted?
No. I mean the quote regarding whether deficits matter or not.