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.
Did we spend 1.9% less in 2012 than we did in 2011?
Or did we increase spending by 13.1% in 2012, instead of the increase of 15% we had expected?
Remember, this is government you are talking to, where even an increase is somehow called a "cut". But only on the spending side.
As long as the US population is growing, government spending is likely to grow as well - as will the GDP and tax revenues in general. That's pretty much a given.
In other words, what they called a "cut", was actually an increase with an excuse?
And, contrary to the claims in the OP, spending never decreased at all? It went UP instead?
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 07-03-2013 at 08:39 AM..
In other words, what they called a "cut", was actually an increase with an excuse?
Sure - but if YOUR household increased in size each year but you started getting smaller raises than you were used to, you'd complain too. Even an INCREASE in income can result in pain if the number of people you are responsible for is increasing faster.
The calculations for GDP is going to change next month as the Fed will start using mark to magic values on assets.
That should make us look even better.
Sure - but if YOUR household increased in size each year but you started getting smaller raises than you were used to, you'd complain too. Even an INCREASE in income can result in pain if the number of people you are responsible for is increasing faster.
Ken
Your comparison is silly, because you increasing your household size, has no relationship to someone elses income.
In other words, what they called a "cut", was actually an increase with an excuse?
And, contrary to the claims in the OP, spending never decreased at all? It went UP instead?
Sure - but if YOUR household increased in size each year but you started getting smaller raises than you were used to, you'd complain too. Even an INCREASE in income can result in pain if the number of people you are responsible for is increasing faster.
That's the excuse I was referring to.
So, contrary to the claims in the OP, spending never decreased at all? It went UP instead?
The graph displays data the way it has displayed data for YEARS - using the same method of determining the deficit that the government has used for DECADES. The fact that YOU don't like what the data shows is NOT an excuse for redefining the way the deficit is calculated.
Ken
I agree. Except Clinton was the first President to move the intergovernmental dollars to the live budget.
And how many years in the last 100 was there an $800 billion loan to the banks which was later repaid?
why is the deficit lower......because REVENUE is up...not from one lick of spending cuts
revenue for 2009------------- 2.1 trillion
revenue for 2012 ------------ 2.5 trillion
expected 2013 revenue-------2.7 trillion
And revenue is up why ?
Because tax changes caused many to cash out and pay the lower cap gains tax.
Same thing happened under Reagan. A surge in tax revenue and then a drop the very next year.
This is a repeat of the 1986 tax changes. They say history repeats itself.
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.
