Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats a $114 billion that would have been much better off left in the pockets of those who earned it. I cant see how the government having this is cause to rejoice.
I take it you don't worry about the deficits and the debt too much. It makes me wonder when people go on about debt and deficits being a big problem, and when we score a surplus, it's also a problem.
Why do you think the comparison is done against the numbers SAME TIME PREVIOUS YEARS?
The deficit is down 40% the first seven months of the fiscal year (compared to the first seven months of last year). Is it really such a bad thing?
Like this "surge" is something new ?
Give it a rest already. You can find that very same headline of surge/surplus going back to 1997.
I'll take the 12 month view myself rather than the one month where tax bills are due.
Thats a $114 billion that would have been much better off left in the pockets of those who earned it. I cant see how the government having this is cause to rejoice.
In theory yes but we still have this huge deficit that has to be paid down. Now none of that should go to new spending which I see Congress is itching to do.
Thanks to lower overall spending and higher tax receipts, Treasury took in $114 billion more than it had to pay out in April, the Congressional Budget Office said.
The U.S. Treasury Department booked a $114 billion surplus in April, the largest for that month since 2008, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Wednesday.
For the first seven months of this fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, the CBO estimates the country has racked up a $301 billion deficit, which is $187 billion lower than it was for the same period last year.
Federal coffers saw a 7% increase in individual income taxes and payroll taxes, a 15% increase in corporate income taxes, and a 37% increase in money paid to Treasury by the Federal Reserve.
Well, it's certainly not because of a booming US economy. Our government is just milking blood from a stone.
The U.S. economy stalled during the first three months of the year, according to government data released Wednesday, failing to meet even modest expectations for growth, which could renew concerns over the sustainability of the recovery.
The nation's gross domestic product expanded at a meager 0.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter -- well below the forecasts for 1.2 percent growth
Our nation's economists say the economic growth may have actually gone into the red:
Here’s how perma-bull Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank, explained it in a note to clients: “Weaker data on construction spending, inventories and net exports imply that Q1 [gross domestic product] will now show a contraction.” LaVorgna now suspects the economy notched a -0.8 percent growth rate during the first three months of the year. Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, thinks economic growth fell 0.4 percent in the first quarter.
So the rest of the months of the year don't matter anymore to liberals? The libs are so desperate to paint Obama, the fiscally reckless incompetent, as being "conservative" in federal spending!
1. Last year's deficit was $680 billion
2. Bush's average deficit was $420 billion (the only reason it was so high was the dem congress in the last two years broke the bank).
3. The reason for the large "percentage decline" in the deficit last year was
a. Obama blew so much money with the dem congress that he was starting with $1.4 trillion deficits
b. The republican congress the last two years has put the brakes on many of Obama's and Reid's massive spending initiatives.
4. Deficits 50% higher than the average of the Bush years is nothing to celebrate.
5. April ALWAYS has higher net revenues, as people are paying their taxes.
2. Correction - according to OMB's historical tables, Bush averaged a deficit of $273 billion in inflation adjusted FY2009 dollars for the fiscal years 2001-2008. Even if you spread the TARP deficit from FY2009, he doesn't get past $350 billion annual.
4. Obama's deficit average isn't 50% higher than Bush...it's 270% higher. Again, if we divide FY2009 and give Bush the TARP debt and Obama gets the 2009 Porkulus debt, then Obama has averaged 215% higher deficits. Bottom line, the Obama administration has run all 6 of the highest budget deficits in US history. His lowest single year deficit in FY2009 adjusted dollars is still higher than the worst single year deficit during WW II. In relation to percentage of GDP, only WW II has Obama beat for FY2009-2012. Not Reagan and his Cold War spending spree, not Vietnam...nothing but 1942-1945 can top Obama on percentage of the economy.
Thanks to lower overall spending and higher tax receipts, Treasury took in $114 billion more than it had to pay out in April, the Congressional Budget Office said.
The U.S. Treasury Department booked a $114 billion surplus in April, the largest for that month since 2008, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Wednesday.
For the first seven months of this fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, the CBO estimates the country has racked up a $301 billion deficit, which is $187 billion lower than it was for the same period last year.
Federal coffers saw a 7% increase in individual income taxes and payroll taxes, a 15% increase in corporate income taxes, and a 37% increase in money paid to Treasury by the Federal Reserve.
2. Correction - according to OMB's historical tables, Bush averaged a deficit of $273 billion in inflation adjusted FY2009 dollars for the fiscal years 2001-2008. Even if you spread the TARP deficit from FY2009, he doesn't get past $350 billion annual.
4. Obama's deficit average isn't 50% higher than Bush...it's 270% higher. Again, if we divide FY2009 and give Bush the TARP debt and Obama gets the 2009 Porkulus debt, then Obama has averaged 215% higher deficits. Bottom line, the Obama administration has run all 6 of the highest budget deficits in US history. His lowest single year deficit in FY2009 adjusted dollars is still higher than the worst single year deficit during WW II. In relation to percentage of GDP, only WW II has Obama beat for FY2009-2012. Not Reagan and his Cold War spending spree, not Vietnam...nothing but 1942-1945 can top Obama on percentage of the economy.
Sorry, just a couple minor edits/additions.
I stand corrected. Obama is even worse than I had thought.
This "percentage reduction" ruse has been widespread among liberals recently. One can only assume that they are either stupid or intentionally deceitful.
A large "percentage reduction" (due to racking up initial, massive deficits himself) and a resulting large deficit is nothing to celebrate. If we are at the point of being pleased with $680 billion deficits, we are in deep trouble.
I stand corrected. Obama is even worse than I had thought.
To be fair, you have to pin the actual budget deficit on the House primarily, and the Senate + POTUS are secondary. Our two worst non-WW II deficits, in terms of % of GDP, were when Pelosi ran the House, Reid ran the Senate and Obama was in the White House. Period.
Now, do I think Boehner and the GOP a bunch of cowards for how slow they've dialed things back from FY2011 on? You betcha. But nobody can ever take Pelosi's peace time spending crown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The libs are so desperate to paint Obama, the fiscally reckless incompetent, as being "conservative" in federal spending! 
