« | »

October Deficit Was 22% Higher Than Last Year

From an unfazed Associated Press:

US could be on path to fifth straight $1 trillion deficit after government runs $120 billion October deficit

November 14, 2012

The federal government started the 2013 budget year with a $120 billion deficit, an indication that the nation is on a path to its fifth straight $1 trillion-plus deficit…

The Treasury Department said Tuesday that the October deficit — the gap between the government’s tax revenue and its spending — was 22 percent higher than the same month last year.

In other words, the current deficit rate is now 22% higher than last year! And we voted for four more years of this?

Tax revenue increased to $184.3 billion — 13 percent greater than the same month last year. Still, spending also rose to $304.3 billion, a 16.4 percent jump…

Which proves once again that we don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

Obama’s presidency has coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus deficits — the first in history and record he had to vigorously defend during his successful re-election campaign…

When was it ever brought up? It certainly was not something the news media ever challenged him on.

The size and scope of this year’s deficit will largely depend on what happens with the so-called fiscal cliff — a package of tax increases and spending cuts set to take effect in January unless the White House and Congress reach a budget deal by then.

If the economy goes over the fiscal cliff, this year’s deficit would shrink to $641 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the CBO also warns that the economy would sink into recession in the first half of 2013…

Which means that "revenue" will also go through the floor. A detail our media guardians never mention.

If the White House and Congress can reach a budget deal that extends the tax cuts and avoids the spending cuts, the deficit will end up roughly $1 trillion for the budget year, the CBO says.

The deficits have been growing for more than a decade but reached a record $1.41 trillion in 2009, Obama’s first year in office. That was largely because of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Tax revenue plummeted during the downturn, while the government spent more on stimulus programs…

The stimulus money was spent after the recession was over.

The deficits first began to widen after President George W. Bush won approval for broad tax cuts and launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You see? Bush is to blame for cutting taxes. But Obama is never blamed for increasing spending.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue. But, again, that is not the real goal in this discussion.

Meanwhile, we have this from the Washington Examiner:

How much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax on the rich accomplish?

Conn Carroll | November 12, 2012

Raising taxes on the rich was the cornerstone of President Obama’s reelection campaign. “If we’re serious about reducing the deficit,” Obama told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on election day, “we’ve got to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was in office.”

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney.

A chart breaking down the costs of the relevant fiscal cliff provisions:

So even the CBO says tax increases on ‘the rich’ won’t reduced the deficit. What a surprise.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, November 14th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “October Deficit Was 22% Higher Than Last Year”

  1. BannedbytheTaliban

    “Obama’s presidency has coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus deficits.”

    It is all just happenstance, just a coincidence that the largest deficits in the history of the USA occurred under Obama. He sure does have it rough. With the Bush recession, the headwinds from Europe, the tsunami in Japan, trouble in the middle east, the racist TEA party, the FBI not telling him about investigations into the head of the CIA, anti-muslim videos, global warming, gulf oil spill, the police acting stupidly, snow-meggedon, and not to mention all those rained out golf games, it is amazing he can even find the strength to get out of bed in the morning.

    • This is the Cloward and Piven scheme in action, to “crash the system” by creating a nation of welfare dependents and government drone ‘employees’. Personal and national bankruptcy leads to riots in the streets and a complete takeover of government. The ‘progressives’ will finally have the total power they crave. Watch what’s happening in Europe. Most of the EU nations are no longer sovereign.

      Obummer and the Demonicrats know precisely what they’re doing. Have you ever noticed the gleam in their eyes when they talk about FDR? It was done by him in the 1930′s, though he failed to complete the process. .

      It’s been a very long time since we’ve had true economic freedom in America, about 110 years.

  2. mr_bill

    The deficits have been growing for more than a decade but reached a record $1.41 trillion in 2009, Obama’s first year in office. That was largely because of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Tax revenue plummeted during the downturn, while the government spent more on stimulus programs…

    If the recession and the stimu-less were the causes of the $1.41 trillion deficit, why is the government still running similar deficits? Aren’t we told that the recession ended? Aren’t we in the nerobama recovery? Haven’t we been told that the stimuless has ended (and we need another one)? Why is government still spending at stimuless levels? Where is that money going? We’ve had four years of the 2009 porkulus and it hasn’t stimulated anything other than widespread welfare enrollment, democrat plantation dependency votes, and union boss kickbacks.

    If we could go back to those days of wicked George W. Bush’s deficits, we’d be in a hell of a lot better shape. In 2007, the deficit was less than $300 billion. To this current cabal of big spending Congressmen and this administration, it takes extreme measures (read HUGE military cuts and GIANT tax increases) just to get to a deficit three times as large as the 2007 deficit. For crying out loud, stop spending so damn much money! Can we just drag out a budget that was passed sometime during the 15 years preceeding nerobama’s election and re-use those numbers? This is the real reason the Senate won’t debate any budget passed by the House. If they pass a budget, spending will be open for changes. If they continue to block passage of a budget, the continuing resolutions only authorize continued spending, but they don’t allow for negotiation on the amount of any budget items. This is also why nerobama submits laughable budgets to Congress. He doesn’t want to get any votes for a new budget. He’s happy with $1.5 trillion deficits. Do you think he wants to give the Congress an opportunity to reduce the level of spending to something reasonable? It would take five years of 2007 deficits to accumulate the debt of just one year under the nerobama regime. The only reason tax increases are being discussed is to give the illusion of wanting to cut the deficits. In actuality, the “promised” spending cuts will never happen, except to the military, and any additional revenue gained from taxes will be too small to change the deficits. Besides that, Congress will promptly spend any of that tax revenue anyhow.

    Government revenues are $3 trillion, that’s 20% of the GDP. The government is spending 30% of GDP and borrowing the difference. They should be able to run the whole government on 1/5 of the entire economic output of the largest economy in the world. They don’t need 1/3. And we’re told bankers and Wall Street folks are greedy, at least they aren’t demanding confiscation of 1/3 of the economic output of our conutry.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      The trick is that the socialists have painted themselves into a corner by virtue of upping the number of people on welfare and the payouts to the socialist unions. That’s an expensive liability and the money-wagon can’t keep dropping off more as time goes on.

      Socialists believe that wealth is a finite quantity when in reality, money is. That is, when they control it, it is. With a free-market, wealth increases and the supply of money increases to reflect that. But from a top-down money supply control aspect, which the socialists never seem to grasp, when you keep taking from the producers of wealth, they will cut back, align their operations to minimize the government’s take.

      Happens every–single–time.

      So, at the end of the ride, the socialists will have to learn (yet they don’t and won’t) as in Greece, Spain and Italy and France that a free market economy is far better than a government-owned and driven one. “Fairness” is an economic wet dream. Can’t be done so it’s best to let the PEOPLE decide for themselves how best to compete in the cold, cruel world rather than setting them up with a crib and a bottle next to the coffin and funeral parlor. Cradle-to-grave care from the government is not what life is about.

      Sadly, politicians end up always going in that direction because of the nature of the human-being to do something when perceived injustice is spied and “needs to be addressed”. That is, politicians have no ability to sit and wait, do nothing and let the system, as designed function. Thus, thousands of more laws/regulations and constraints are added every year to society, hampering its ability to function and always draining the money supply. But it’s in their nature to play handyman to society’s woes. In very rare occasion, it’s necessary but in the day-to-day it’s not only unnecessary, it’s unwelcome as well, except by the narrow population segment that will benefit from the action for a short time before the status-quo reappears.

      I further submit that the vast majority of “mover and shaker” politicians are really just actors, showmen, poseurs, who’s own life-resume’s are shallow, bereft of actual accomplishment and largely empty. That includes Romney who has a resume of what some consider “great accomplishments” but I disagree. He filled squares and is a competent human-being in most areas but all his taskings throughout his life were of very little risk to himself.

    • mr_bill

      They will live in their fantasy land of handouts and participation trophies, ignoring the competitive reality that drives the successful. It will come crashing down upon them, and soon if they continue at the pace they are going. When the producers decide to stop paying for all the parasites’ “free” stuff, we will have a time of “re-adjustment” and the producing class can get back to running the country properly.

  3. DoctorRock

    Mr. Bill, I’m sure you’re a good boy, but you’re not getting it. Our government isn’t trying to help us. Cloward-Piven is the best explanation. And notice how artfully I can express my opinion, so as not to attract unwarranted attention – C-P advocates the destruction of our system, so it can be replaced by a socialist state. Invariably, the academic snots have overlooked our pesky second amendment. In the resulting chaos there will be no 140% of the populace giving supporting fire in St. Lucie. There will simply be the re-emergence of a Jefferson republic. The interesting part will come when we tell China what they can do with the debt.

    • mr_bill

      DoctorRock, I don’t consider condescension to be “artful.” We are all aware of the CP strategy and have been aware of it for years. My post is aimed at the fact that even though the stimulus “ended” several years ago, nobody seems to be asking where the last 3 years of stimulus-level spending is going. Conservatives and the TEA party have asked for spending cuts ad nauseum, but I haven’t seen many asking where this money is going or even to ask for a justification for this protracted stimulus-level spending from those who are donig it. Many seem to have forgotten that just a few years back, a $300 billion deficit was considered extremely high, now people act as if the end of the world will come if we return to deficits of that size. Somehow, in a very short time, extraordinary deficits have become the new normal. And I’m not just talking about statists, I’m talking everybody. Take the Paul Ryan’s budget proposal: His budget was still huge, relative to just a few years back.

  4. GetBackJack

    “We can’t be broke. We still have checks in our checkbook”

    That’s a Joint Bi-Partisan statement released from Congress, endorsed by and signed by just over 450 members of Congress.

  5. CRISIS FATIGUE

    I have successfully been “Cloward-Pivened” as my system is over-run with never-ending cliffs, deadlines, or crisis of some sort or another.

    Yet who is to blame for all this? How many political emails have you gotten like this:

    Dear _________.
    Help us stop Senator/Congressman ___________ from a bill that would take your ______________ rights away! Tell him/her “hands off my________________ rights!”
    Won’t you please donate $5,$10,$25 or more to help us fight to save your __________ rights?

    (donations come pouring in from both sides, the bill or proposal is defeated, coffers are filled, no money is refunded: all too easy)

    LISTEN TO ME: I am ALREADY paying good money for you bozos to protect my rights, as it is called your salary, AND don’t forget our rights are supposed to be GUARANTEED ANYWAY by a little thing called constitution, remember?

    I am sick. I have crisis fatigue. Whatever happens, happens because those who want to take our rights away are just going to go back at it tomorrow, or the next day. Fall off the fiscal cliff, don’t meet that deadline, don’t pass a budget, who cares at this point.

    If you don’t imprison people who even PROPOSE something unconstitutional, they will continue to erode our rights without any threat of punishment.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »