PDA

View Full Version : 2014 will mark smallest deficit since 1980




56ktarget
04-17-2014, 02:53 AM
Lowest gdp to deficit ratio since 1980.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140414-710455.html

CPUd
04-17-2014, 03:02 AM
This looks like it is a pretty big deal! You should contact a mod and request it be put on the front page.

XNavyNuke
04-17-2014, 05:26 AM
Well, you could believe the OP or read the WSJ article. The actual 4/14 press release from the CBO reads differently from the spin presented.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45229

XNN

erowe1
04-17-2014, 06:19 AM
OP, do you consider that a good thing? If so, don't you have to consider the partisan gridlock in Washington, with Republicans obstructing everything the Democrats want to do, a good thing too?

erowe1
04-17-2014, 06:24 AM
Well, you could believe the OP or read the WSJ article. The actual 4/14 press release from the CBO reads differently from the spin presented.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45229

XNN

Yeah, the decrease in the deficit is unsustainable. Entitlements are going to make it balloon soon. But that was already looming.

I don't think there's really any question that the federal government has grown a lot more slowly under Obama than it would have under McCain or Romney, which is why people who favor more spending (of all kinds) should have preferred that they win, while people who favor less spending (of all kinds) should have preferred that Obama win.

I wonder what 56ktarget preferred in those elections.

thequietkid10
04-17-2014, 06:59 AM
Lowest gdp to deficit ratio since 1980.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140414-710455.html

I would very much applaud President Obama and the Congress for their work on this matter. If the decline in the deficit was not expected to be temporary. Seeing as it will be temporary, I won't.

Chester Copperpot
04-17-2014, 07:05 AM
this is just more bullshit..

smalled deficit since 1980 im aware of was about $17 billion during one of the clinton years..

anytime you see something based on GDP ratio or on some rolling 10 year plan its a sure sign its a load of chickenshit

Origanalist
04-17-2014, 07:10 AM
this is just more bullshit..

smalled deficit since 1980 im aware of was about $17 billion during one of the clinton years..

anytime you see something based on GDP ratio or on some rolling 10 year plan its a sure sign its a load of chickenshit

"There are liars, damned liars and statisticians." - Mark Twain

erowe1
04-17-2014, 07:10 AM
this is just more bullshit..

smalled deficit since 1980 im aware of was about $17 billion during one of the clinton years..

anytime you see something based on GDP ratio or on some rolling 10 year plan its a sure sign its a load of chickenshit

Yeah, the OP misread the article. It doesn't say it's the smallest deficit/GDP ratio since 1980. It says it's the smallest since 2007. 56kt saw the date 1980 mentioned for something else in the article and didn't understand what he was reading.

thoughtomator
04-17-2014, 07:28 AM
Yeah, the OP misread the article. It doesn't say it's the smallest deficit/GDP ratio since 1980. It says it's the smallest since 2007. 56kt saw the date 1980 mentioned for something else in the article and didn't understand what he was reading.

Guys, he couldn't be a more obvious troll if he was hanging out under a bridge demanding payment for passage.

Ronin Truth
04-17-2014, 08:26 AM
How can you have a deficit if you can't have a budget? :confused: How many years now?

torchbearer
04-17-2014, 09:05 AM
Yeah, the OP misread the article. It doesn't say it's the smallest deficit/GDP ratio since 1980. It says it's the smallest since 2007. 56kt saw the date 1980 mentioned for something else in the article and didn't understand what he was reading.


That reading deficit may be the cause for the logic deficit.

pcosmar
04-17-2014, 09:18 AM
http://auditorz.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/cooking-the-books.jpg

AuH20
04-17-2014, 09:32 AM
Did you read the fine print?


The CBO said it expects the government will spend $3.523 trillion in 2014, representing 20.4% of GDP. Two-thirds of the spending is directed to military-related programs and benefits for Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. It said the government will bring in $3.032 trillion in revenue, a figure that represents 17.6% of GDP. Most of that comes from individual income taxes and payroll taxes.

They haven't really cut anything of substance, but they have increased taxes. In comparison to 2013, when the federal government took home approximately $2.7 trillion in tax revenue.

jkr
04-17-2014, 09:44 AM
INFLATION 4 tha WIN!

AuH20
04-17-2014, 09:46 AM
How can you have a deficit if you can't have a budget? :confused: How many years now?

A deficit is the numerical difference between total tax revenue and federal outlays in a calendar year. All they did was increase tax revenue and then passed it off as efficiency & cost savings.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb194/IGetPaid2Play/sleighhand.jpg

angelatc
04-17-2014, 10:13 AM
Did you read the fine print?



They haven't really cut anything of substance, but they have increased taxes. In comparison to 2013, when the federal government took home approximately $2.7 trillion in tax revenue.

BUt that's the fundamental difference between us and the OP. He wants taxes to be higher. He does not want anything to be private. The higher the taxes, the more people depend on government, and the less private capital is in play.

angelatc
04-17-2014, 10:17 AM
Yeah, the OP misread the article. It doesn't say it's the smallest deficit/GDP ratio since 1980. It says it's the smallest since 2007. 56kt saw the date 1980 mentioned for something else in the article and didn't understand what he was reading.


Which is why liberals should never be trusted with money. There's a reason they are poor, and it isn't racism. They just do not understand money, finance and economics. The Republicans do. Granted, they tend to use that knowledge for evil instead of good but at least they understand what they're doing.



CBO's adjustments come as the government's debt ratio sits at historically high levels, representing 73.8% of GDP. Debt rose sharply in the past six years when revenue plummeted and spending expanded as a result of the financial crisis and policy response.

Dumb assery.

Boshembechle
04-17-2014, 10:35 AM
So the Laffer curve is horse manure, I guess.

angelatc
04-17-2014, 01:13 PM
So the Laffer curve is horse manure, I guess.

You really don't serve yourself well by trying to participate in economics threads. The Laffer curve represents a theory about how taxable income reacts to changes in taxation. It has nothing to do with deficit spending, except perhaps as a tool when developing a plan to try to pay down the debt.

thoughtomator
04-17-2014, 01:34 PM
So the Laffer curve is horse manure, I guess.

It is. Not only has Laffer been convicted of fraud, but the base assumption behind the Laffer curve - that the goal of taxation is to maximize government revenue - is inimical to a free society.

angelatc
04-17-2014, 03:31 PM
It is. Not only has Laffer been convicted of fraud, but the base assumption behind the Laffer curve - that the goal of taxation is to maximize government revenue - is inimical to a free society.

I don't think he was convicted for fraud, although he was sued when a business venture went bust. The liberals yammered about it...

ANd he didn't actually invent the Laffer curve. It picked up the name during the Ford years because he talked about it.

And the base assumption isn't that the goal of taxation is to maximize government revenue. The base assumption is that there is a point where the relationship of income to tax will provide a maximum return.

erowe1
04-17-2014, 09:20 PM
So the Laffer curve is horse manure, I guess.

Yeah, so?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-19-2014, 03:40 AM
This thread is another laffer for an OP who keeps getting run out of his own threads. Laffing out loud.

kathy88
04-19-2014, 06:25 AM
Where is Zippy? I'm sure he will have the real answers...

torchbearer
04-19-2014, 07:45 AM
Where is Zippy? I'm sure he will have the real answers...


I respect Zippy, he actually tries to make valid points.
The OP on the other hand, he read a few big words and now repeats them without knowing the meaning.