Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Oh the pain --we need new direction???


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEFICIT DROPS TO LOWEST POINT IN 4 YEARS


Jan 12 2:33 PM US/Eastern

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal deficit has improved significantly in the first three months of the new budget year, helped by a continued surge in tax revenues.
In its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Friday that the deficit from October through December totaled $80.4 billion, the smallest imbalance for the first three months of a budget year since The budget year ends Sept. 30.

Tax collections are running 8.2 percent higher than a year ago while government spending is up by just 0.7 percent from a year ago. Last year's spending totals were boosted by significant payments to help the victims of the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.

The $80.4 billion deficit for the first three months of the current budget year was down 32.6 percent from the imbalance for the same period a year ago of $119.4 billion.

For the year, analysts are still forecasting that the deficit will worsen from last year's total of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest in four years.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the 2007 budget year will rise to $286 billion, an increase of 15.2 percent from last year, but that figure could be lowered when the CBO releases its revised estimate later this month.

The Bush administration is currently even more pessimistic, predicting a deficit for 2007 of $339.2 billion, but that figure will also be revised when the administration releases its new budget request to Congress on Feb. 5.

Bush, who took office while the country was running record surpluses, saw the deficit hit an all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004.

President Bush has said his new budget will outline a path to eliminate the deficit completely by 2012.

For the first three months of the current budget year, revenues total $573.5 billion, an increase of 8.2 percent from tax collections in the same period a year ago. Outlays totaled $653.9 billion, up 0.7 percent from a year ago.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Primary Navigation
HomeU.S.BusinessWorldEntertainmentSportsTechPoliticsScienceHealthTravelMost Popular
Secondary Navigation
Economy Stock Markets Earnings Personal Finance Opinion Press Releases Search: All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dow ends at record as energy up on higher crude

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070112/bs_nm/markets_stocks_dc_62
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and we have good news for other side to-minimum wage is passed--

 

[The Sponge]

Dog you ever notice you always have these figures that are in "3 yeasr" or "4 years". You never have anything that is "7 years" Or" eight years".

 

[The Sponge]

FEDERAL DEFICIT DROPS TO LOWEST POINT IN 4 YEARS


Thank goodness for the democratic congress. nice job boys and girls.

 

[djv]

In all fairness it should be zero. About 6 years ago some one was handed a 273 billion surplus.

 

[Chadman]

Let me get this straight, Wayne. You are singing the praises of this quarter's deficit numbers, and are posting this article as some kind of positive thing. Let's examine what is contained in this very report you think is good.

For the QUARTER, we ran an $80 billion deficit. To me, that's not a good thing.

The analysts predict the deficits for the rest of the year will rise, and will be 15.2% higher than last year.

The comparison here is to highs of four years ago, under Bush. Hardly a positive...comparing bad to worse for the same administration.

There were surpluses prior to Bush taking over. Not record deficits.

Ok, thanks for posting this, W. You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I don't think its too shabby Chad considering we inherit recession--take trillion + hit on economy on 911-fund 2 wars -get hit with biggest natural disaster ever.

If you polled 100 economist prior to 911 on events that would follow and tell them where economy would be sitting--they think one was nuts.

Sponge--"FEDERAL DEFICIT DROPS TO LOWEST POINT IN 4 YEARS
Thank goodness for the democratic congress. nice job boys and girls.

Surely your not serious--note most of Dems projects are "we are going to give you"

You need to remember there is no giving--somebody pays--just not their voting block.

an old proverb worth noting--
Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day--teach a man to fish and you fed him for life.

 

[djv]

Didn't part of this deficit come from tax cuts way to high for those over 500000 a year. We were to learn you cant over spend then give money away at same time. We should be ahead of where we are. A market that takes 6 years to get back to it's record highs. Well with all money being spent on defense a lone it should have moved faster. We have just one big correction this year and watch where that deficit goes. We can't balance the budget now. And there was a surplus left to help. And I was told it was over 300 billion not 273. But in truth is it not all just on paper. Were ok as long as the government of China, England, and Japan don't ask to be payed back at same time for covering all our debt. Good think they don't our interest rates would go even higher. Much Higher.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

That would depend on who you ask DJV--or did tax cut lead to economy boom and the biggest tax revenues in history--???--One thing is certain--The Dems were dead wrong on consequences they projected--

Of course--
Some People Can Find a Dark Cloud in Almost Any Silver Lining


Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Short Sleeves in January

Most northeasterners responded to the recent unseasonable seventy degree weather by wearing short sleeves and celebrating lower energy heating costs. But instead of celebrating, many took it as a sign of coming disaster, according to the Business and Media Institute.

From NBC's Meredith Veira, "I'm running in the park on Saturday, in shorts, thinking this is great, but are we all gonna die?"

Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post wrote, "The weather is sublime, it's glorious, it's the end of the world."

And in the New York Times, "Yesterday the joys of wearing short sleeves were tempered with the anxiety of environmental disaster."

But according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, it's just El Nino, a warm current of water that appears every few years in the eastern Pacific Ocean that is responsible for the warmer temperatures.

 

[djv]

I don't care what has help winter be so Nice. I'm just happy to see my heating bills almost 30% lower then last year.
As for deficit we will never know. But I believe we may have pulled out of the bears in three years.

 

[StevieD]

Wayne, do you count the cost of the occupation?

 

[The Sponge]

That myth of having a recession handed to the rightwingers is almost as comical as the myth Bush senior said when he said he handed Clinton a booming economy. Or the one when the rightwingers say they are responsible for Clintons great performance when in fact the dirtbags all voted against his budget. Everyone of them. That is why i posted the thing about democrats being in charge now and thankgod cause now the deficit is going down. that would be your silly talking point if this was in reverse.

 

[Roger Baltrey]

Dogs,

Dont use the war as an excuse. Bush wants to cut taxes and spend 100B on an unnecessary war that did nothing for our national security. He also flipped the bird at the rest of the world because in the past we had other countries pony up for the Wars we initiated. This one comes right out of my pocket and who would have thought in 2003 this debacle would still be costing us $100B and 1000 lives a year.....with no end in sight. This Bozo threw fiscal sanity out the window when he came into office. :nono:

 

[Chadman]

Wayne will always use Iraq and 9-11 as an excuse, even moreso than the administration has done. The actual cost of 9-11 to the treasury for rebuilding was relatively small - as I have posted before. The state of NY was hit hard, but not the government so much. Businesses like airlines and travel were hurt, so I guess there were losses to the overall economy, yes. But 9-11 has always been dramatically overstated in passing by Wayne. The war in Iraq is completely elective by the administration, completely, so in my opinion you have to accept the responsibility of the cost and deficit, which is the biggest kick in the pants for all of us that there is. Afganistan is in my mind underfunded and deserving of much more, always has been. But Iraq, sadly, is and was not. Katrina was a horrible thing, and did take money directly from the scenario, no matter if it was handled properly or not.

The other thing that is never mentioned by Wayne and conservatives is that for years the interest rates have been artificially suppressed to try to instigate spending and purchasing of homes, etc. We see that market and individuals now unable to sustain itself and our trade imbalances with other countries and investment in our country due to those suppressive maneuvers to be taking a toll on the country moving forward. Our country is very much in debt to other major powers, like China and Japan, and nothing has been done by this administration to head off that problem.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Sponge Show just one economist from either prty affiliation that says this admin didn't inheirit a recession--look at Dow time line when dot.com bubble went south--the dow was 10,952.18 on nov 7 2000.
Fridays close 12,556.08--now spin them #'s

Heres best short anology from non partisan view--wikipedia---as you see they also do not prescrible that any admin in general has as much input in economy as othersituations that occur--

The cause of the recession are often ascribed politically either to President Clinton by the Republicans or President Bush by the Democrats. However it would be untrue to suggest that either President caused the economy to recede. Causes often cited include:

The bursting of the dot-com bubble, which caused an end to the 'irrational exuberance' of the late 1990s, in Economic terms, the wealth effect happened in reverse. As consumers saw the value of their assets fall, they were less likely to purchase as many goods and services, choosing instead to save, possibly for fear of job losses. In addition, the Tech bubble saw the creation of many Web businesses with unsustainable business models that survived on high stock prices or venture capital. As the stock bubble deflated, the cash for these companies dried up, and many failed or sharply downsized. In turn, this created a flood of server hardware on the secondary market, and hardware and telecom companies suffered as a result.
Corporate scandals such as the Enron and Worldcom debacles. President Bush is often blamed for the flourishing of corporate scandals in 2001 however it must be remembered that these scandals began two years before he took office, furthermore, these scandals were revealed way into 2001, marking these scandals off as events that made the existing problems worse, rather than initial causes.
The natural end of the economic cycle. The U.S. economy had been expanding since mid 1991, according to some economists it was time for the usual cycle to occur.
A high deflationary impact because there were huge budget surpluses at the time ($236 billion in FY01). Keynesian economics suggests that this would slow the economy because the government is hoarding a substantial amount of money.
The millennium bug. Prior to 2000, a lot of money was spent trying to tackle the Y2K bug. After the start of 2000, this spending dried up and many firms decided to cut down sharply on technological investment because they had most of the technology they needed for the meantime, this may have been a key factor in the decline in the stock market after March 2000, and this fall in investment was detrimental to the general performance of the economy.
The economic shock of the September 11th terror attacks, which resulted in a drastic fall in consumer confidence, huge insurance payouts and a fall in the demand for travel and tourism



Roger whether war is necessary is an opinion--as far as coming out of your pocket--I believe the FACT is all those that pay taxes have had their out of pocket reduced in this administration-and if your an investor you should be making a killing--but since your complaining I can only assume neither the tax cut or booming market has been beneficial to you. If thats the case you need to put blame where it belongs.

 

[StevieD]

Wayne, we all know that Greenspan started the recession with his comments and actions to slow the economy. I will not argue his motives because that belongs in another thread. But you didn't answer my question about the deficit. Are you including the cost of the Invasion and occupation of Iraq in your numbers about the deficit?

 

[Roger Baltrey]

Dogs,

I did fine both under Clinton and Bush. Who cares? I just don't believe the most prosperous country on earth should run a deficit. I wouldn't if I was in charge. Further, I don't believe in spending $100B a year to referee a civil war. But the keystone cops got us into this and now will have to figure out a way to get us out. Therefore, we will probably spend another $300B and wear down our Army and maybe not accomplish anything. And if the Insane Buffoon in Iran goes nuclear, we may not have the depth in the Army to take his ass out. You should just come to terms with the fact that this guy blew a golden opportunity to be a decent president and now looks like a clueless lame duck without any support here and abroad.

 

[shambala14]

The deficit being at a 4 year low means nothing. Bush was president then too. Plus, the deficit is the gap between the amount of money that leaves the government and the amount that enters it every year. We are still losing about $500,000,000,000 (five hundred billion dollars) a year.

 

[Jaxx]

Yea and I can see it now the democrats will have the economy in recession with big spending and government for all and will be blaming it on the war. It will be there big out for a decade to come. Who do you demo's want for pres. Clinton or Obama. We will be so screwed.
:142smilie

 

[djv]

Was the Dow over 11700 back in 2000. Not 10500
Or was that January 99 or 01.
And S & P that means even more then the 30 stocks in Dow was how high?
Just working the numbers a little. I don't say it was just Clinton doing great job. I just say if we had been a little less say spenders last 5 years. And a more realistic tax break. I don't think we would have waited almost 6 years to make it up. And remember these tax breaks are not paid for. Some of those bills come due in 2010 and 2011. Funny how Bush will be gone by then and they can blame that on next guy. And whats with all these folk setting records loosing there homes they can't pay for. Even with 6% interest.

 

[StevieD]

Yea and I can see it now the democrats will have the economy in recession with big spending and government for all and will be blaming it on the war. It will be there big out for a decade to come. Who do you demo's want for pres. Clinton or Obama. We will be so screwed.
:142smilie

So who is to blame? Now remember before you answer, the Dems have been charge of Congress for what 2 weeks?