U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII

[BigRedChief]

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capi...rld-war-ii.htm



Believe it or not, the federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such stretch since demobilization from World War II.

In fact, outside of that post-WWII era, the only time the deficit has fallen faster was when the economy relapsed in 1937, turning the Great Depression into a decade-long affair.

If U.S. history offers any guide, we are already testing the speed limits of a fiscal consolidation that doesn't risk backfiring. That's why the best way to address the fiscal cliff likely is to postpone it.

While long-term deficit reduction is important and deficits remain very large by historical standards, the reality is that the government already has its foot on the brakes.

In this sense, the "fiscal cliff" metaphor is especially poor. The government doesn't need to apply the brakes with more force to avoid disaster. Rather the "cliff" is an artificial one that has sprung up because the two parties are able to agree on so little.

Hopefully, they will agree, as they did at the end of 2010, to embrace their disagreement for a bit longer. That seems a reasonably likely outcome of negotiations because the most likely alternative to a punt is a compromise (expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top and the payroll tax cut, along with modest spending cuts) that could still push the economy into recession.

Rather than applying additional fiscal restraint now, the government needs to make sure it sets the course for steady restraint once the economy emerges further from the deep employment hole that remains. In fact, a number of so-called deficit hawks are calling for short-term tax cuts to spur growth, rather than immediate austerity.

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's just a bit faster than the 3.0 percentage point deficit improvement from 1995 to '98, but at that point, the economy had everything going for it.

Other occasions when the federal deficit contracted by much more than 1 percentage point a year have coincided with recession. Some examples include 1937, 1960 and 1969.

President Obama hasn't gotten much credit for reining in the deficit, probably because a big part of the deficit progress has come from the unwinding of extraordinary government supports that he helped put in place. Stimulus programs have come and mostly gone; the end of stimulus to states led them to enact Medicaid curbs; jobless benefits in recent months have fallen by 50% since early 2010 (due to both job gains and extended benefits being exhausted).

TARP and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also make the deficit improvement look better, boosting the fiscal '09 deficit by about $200 billion more than in fiscal '12 (though the initial cost of TARP was overstated).

Still, military spending is now on the decline due to fewer troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; Medicare costs rose 3% last year vs. the average 7% growth in recent years; and after the last year's Budget Control Act, excluding the automatic cuts set to take effect in January, nondefense discretionary spending is already on a path to shrink to 2.7% of GDP, well below the 3.9% average, notes the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Otter,

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's the math.

What "numbers" are you looking at? Because I'm calling bullshit.

This one: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Otter,

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's the math.

What "numbers" are you looking at? Because I'm calling bullshit.

Dude, you guys wanna believe this shit, which I know you do because you're a blind whore to all things Obama, go right ahead. You look like a fool. This is like cheering for an alcoholic that cut down to 3 liters of vodka a day,

[Brainiac]

The deficits for the last 6 years:

2007: $161 Billion
2008: $459 Billion
2009: $1.4 Trillion
2010: $1.3 Trillion
2011: $1.3 Trillion
2012: $1.1 Trillion (estimated)

I know it's fashionable for the Obots to call the 2009 deficit a "Bush deficit" so that they can argue that Obama is some kind of awesome deficit cutter.

But the fact is Obama was elected President in November of 2008. He was inaugurated as President on January 20th, 2009. To try to claim that the $1.4 Trillion deficit in 2009 is a "Bush deficit" is patently ridiculous, and it's typical of the spin that is being applied these days in an attempt to portray Obama as a fiscally responsible President. His first year in office he added a TRILLION dollars to the deficit, and now he's simply maintaining it.

You Obots can make these ridiculous claims all you want. Just don't be surprised that anyone with a lick of common sense doesn't buy it.

[Otter]

And read the first sentence 'over the past three years'. Think about that for a second Einstein...

[JASONSAUTO]

Originally Posted by Otter

And read the first sentence 'over the past three years'. Think about that for a second Einstein...

Lol. It will be spun
Posted via Mobile Device

[Brainiac]

There is one thing the BRC/Direckshun Obot twins get right: elections have consequences. About a trillion consequences every year.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Otter

This one: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Debt is not the same thing as deficit, tard.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

The deficits for the last 6 years:

Obama's been in office four years.

Originally Posted by Brainiac

2009: $1.4 Trillion
2010: $1.3 Trillion
2011: $1.3 Trillion
2012: $1.1 Trillion (estimated)

I know it's fashionable for the Obots to call the 2009 deficit a "Bush deficit" so that they can argue that Obama is some kind of awesome deficit cutter.

But the fact is Obama was elected President in November of 2008. He was inaugurated as President on January 20th, 2009. To try to claim that the $1.4 Trillion deficit in 2009 is a "Bush deficit" is patently ridiculous, and it's typical of the spin that is being applied these days in an attempt to portray Obama as a fiscally responsible President.

All due respect, but this is not a very well educated argument.

But regardless -- Obama and the government spent more at the outset due to the argument I made earlier in the thread:

The truth is, austerity in a bad economy has been proven again, and again, and again, to be reckless.

Europe, four years ago, as in a similar situation to us. Europe embraced the conservative solution -- austerity.

The United States embraced the liberal solution -- deficit-fueled demand injected into the economy by the government.

Now, one entity is headed in the right direction. The other is at 12% unemployment and rising.

Originally Posted by Brainiac

His first year in office he added a TRILLION dollars to the deficit, and now he's simply maintaining it.

This is hilariously wrong.

The Great Recession occurred that walloped tax receipts. This isn't new news.

And the idea that Obama is "simply maintaining it" is undercut by the OP.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

There is one thing the BRC/Direckshun Obot twins get right: elections have consequences. About a trillion consequences every year.

Please share with me how we could have lowered the deficit more than $300 billion over the past four years while pulling the economy out of a recession.

My guess is that you, along with anybody else, is incapable of figuring that out.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Obama's been in office four years.

JFC, are you really this stupid? I showed the last 6 years so that we could compare the deficits of Bush's last 2 years with the deficits of Obama's 4 years. If I had shown the deficits of the last 20 years, would you have said "But, but, Obama's only been in office four years! Why are you confusing me with this extra data?

Originally Posted by Direckshun

All due respect, but this is not a very well educated argument.

Oh really? Are you aware of what an unsupported assertion is? Try supporting your assertion with something other than "this is not a very well educated argument" or your standard "Swing and a miss".

Originally Posted by Direckshun

But regardless -- Obama and the government spent more at the outset due to the argument I made earlier in the thread:


This is hilariously wrong.

The Great Recession occurred that walloped tax receipts. This isn't new news.

And the idea that Obama is "simply maintaining it" is undercut by the OP.

OK, I see how this works. I say that the OP is wrong. I support it with facts and statistics, and I point out the dishonesty of trying to blame the 2009 deficits on Bush. You say the OP is right, and your evidence to support that is, well, the OP.

Add "circular argument" to your word list of the day, along with "unsupported assertion".

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

JFC, are you really this stupid? I showed the last 6 years so that we could compare the deficits of Bush's last 2 years with the deficits of Obama's 4 years. If I had shown the deficits of the last 20 years, would you have said "But, but, Obama's only been in office four years! Why are you confusing me with this extra data?

The deficit was $1.3 trillion when Obama walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.

Originally Posted by Brainiac

OK, I see how this works. I say that the OP is wrong.

The deficit has fallen $300 billion since Obama first walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Please share with me how we could have lowered the deficit more than $300 billion over the past four years while pulling the economy out of a recession.

My guess is that you, along with anybody else, is incapable of figuring that out.

When you increase the deficit from $459 billion to $1.4 trillion in year 1, then "only" have a deficit $1.1 trillion in year 4, I suppose you can claim that you lowered the deficit by $300 billion. If you're an idiot.

And you can say all you want about "pulling the economy out of a recession", and you would be technically correct since we are no longer in a situation where GDP has declined for two consecutive quarters. However, the real unemployment rate tells the story of an economy that is in terrible shape.

The 'Real' Unemployment Rate Is Still Really Lousy

If you have doubts about the official jobless rate, there's another rate you can check out instead--the "real" unemployment rate, which measures everybody considered unemployed plus a lot of others who are falling through the cracks.

The government calls this the "U-6" rate, and it has become a source of considerable intrigue lately. Some critics of President Obama contend that the government keeps the "real" rate a secret, because it reveals an economy that's in far worse shape than the official unemployment rate suggests. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says frequently that while the official unemployment rate may be improving, the real rate is still terrible. "If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force," Romney said in a recent statement, "the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent."

It may be even higher than that, depending on how you count. The official unemployment rate fell in September from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent, which is good news for Obama heading into the last few weeks before the November elections. The unemployment rate is now 2.1 percentage points below its 2009 peak, and at the same level as when Obama took office.

But Romney is correct to suggest that the official rate doesn't capture the depth of pain in the labor market. His rate, of nearly 11 percent, comes from an extrapolation involving the percentage of adults considered to be part of the labor force. But the government's own U-6 measure is even higher, at 14.7 percent. That's the percentage of adult Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, too discouraged to look for work or "marginally attached" to the labor force.

http://news.yahoo.com/real-unemploym...211815397.html

[Munson]

In the first month of fiscal year 2013, the deficit is already $120 billion. Obama is on pace for another trillion dollar deficit, for the 5th year in a row.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA2HA0B00

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The deficit was $1.3 trillion when Obama walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.



The deficit has fallen $300 billion since Obama first walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.

Completely false. The deficit was $459 billion the day Obama walked into office. Now it's $1.1 trillion.

I know you refuse to believe the evidence that's right in front of you, but that doesn't make the evidence go away.

[Ebolapox]

like it or not, these things just don't matter to obama fans--he's just so dreamy!