U.S. deficit falls to $680 Billion...

[Godzuki]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/30/news/economy/deficit-2013-treasury/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

U.S. deficit falls to $680 billion
By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney October 30, 2013: 5:31 PM ET

14
Email Print

fiscal year deficits
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
The federal government's latest annual deficit is the smallest it's been since 2008, according to Treasury Department data released Wednesday.

At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

As a percent of the economy, it's also considerably smaller than it's been in the past five years, coming in at 4.1% of gross domestic product. By contrast, the annual deficit in 2009 topped 10% of GDP. And last year it was 6.8%.

Overall, Treasury said higher receipts accounted for 79% of the decline in the deficit from last year.

Related: Washington's budget fiasco

Several factors have contributed to the strong improvement in the nation's near-term fiscal picture. They include an improving economy and a mix of fiscal restraint -- primarily, the expiration of stimulus measures, the imposition of across-the-board budget cuts known as the sequester, and tax increases on high-income households during the 2013 fiscal year, which ended September 30.

Another boon was the fact that Fannie Mae (FNMA, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FMCC, Fortune 500) paid back a large part of the $187 billion federal bailout the mortgage giants received, starting in 2008, to help them weather the housing crisis.

In addition, total interest payments -- $415.6 billion -- were moderate relative to the amount of outstanding debt and GDP, but were nearly 16% higher than in 2012.

Overall, spending in 2013 totaled 20.8% of GDP, down from 22% the year before, thanks in part to declines in defense spending and unemployment benefits, as well as the sequester. Among the areas where annual spending rose were Social Security and Medicare.
4 reasons the deal is not so great
4 reasons the deal is not so great

Money going into federal coffers reached 16.7% of GDP, up from 15.2% in 2012. Tax receipts from individuals and estate and gift taxes saw the biggest percentage jumps, and most major categories of receipts were higher too.

Treasury's latest data for 2013 were delayed by a few weeks due to the 16-day partial government shutdown that began on October 1.

The report also came as a new bipartisan group of lawmakers have begun to work toward a budget deal to at least ensure funding continues for the rest of fiscal year 2014 and to resolve whether or not to replace the sequester.

Either way, fiscal restraint is likely to continue for the next couple of years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the annual deficit will fall to a low of 2.1% of GDP in 2015, before starting to rise again thereafter.

Independent budget experts' concern, however, is not about the country's deficits over the next 10 years. Their concern is about the subsequent decades when spending on major entitlement programs, as well as interest on the debt, will consume much larger portions of the budget while revenue is not expected to increase enough to keep pace.

I guess all of the schizo internet conspiracy theorists and doom and gloomers here are going to have to shift to something else pretty soon(i'm assuming obamacare is their new fear mongering trend). Which includes most of the far right Republicans trying to wreck our near Depression economic recovery for the sake of long term deficit reduction.

Man none of you are ever right about anything it seems :cheers:

[Dresta]

Having a deficit of 680 billion while having a gross debt in excess of GDP is a success?

:lol:

[HarryCallahan]

And that's good is it?

[Godzuki]

Having a deficit of 680 billion while having a gross debt in excess of GDP is a success?

:lol:


You can't be that dumb. I'll just assume you're just playing hater :applause:

[HarryCallahan]

100+trillion in unfunded liabilities, 17trillion in debt, annual deficits of 700billion.... yup things are lookin reeaal good...

[Godzuki]

And that's good is it?


considering some of you were talking 3 trillion+~ and never being able to pay it off while the country went bankrupt, i think so....

and read between the lines of how much of it we already cut down.

seriously just realize this is a crushing blow to your paranoid world where America is going to end(be taken over by China, go bankrupt, etc) some of you have been preaching here for years. Set yourself right please and stop being so pessimistic and doom/gloom with so much stuff :cheers:

[Godzuki]

100+trillion in unfunded liabilities, 17trillion in debt, annual deficits of 700billion.... yup things are lookin reeaal good...


up to date sources pls thx

[kNicKz]

OP wrote "deficit" and not "annual deficit" in the title

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Big things in washington

[Godzuki]

OP wrote "deficit" and not "annual deficit" in the title

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Big things in washington


enlighten me pls :confusedshrug:

[Jameerthefear]

title of the op got me really confused :lol

[HarryCallahan]

What you wrote means total deficit, when you meant annual deficit. If the deficit was only $680b it would be pretty fine.

You are clueless.

[kNicKz]

title of the op got me really confused :lol

^^

I see what OP did.

Translation:

We are still sending ourselves into serious debt, but at a lesser rate than last year.

:banana: It's time to celebrate!! :banana:

[HarryCallahan]

title of the op got me really confused :lol

Even hs kids are more clued in than op's fgty ass.

[Dresta]

You can't be that dumb. I'll just assume you're just playing hater :applause:Coming from the person who thinks the US is in a good position economically because it has cut its deficit a bit :roll: .


considering some of you were talking 3 trillion+~ and never being able to pay it off while the country went bankrupt, i think so....

and read between the lines of how much of it we already cut down.

seriously just realize this is a crushing blow to your paranoid world where America is going to end(be taken over by China, go bankrupt, etc) some of you have been preaching here for years. Set yourself right please and stop being so pessimistic and doom/gloom with so much stuff :cheers:Some of you? Seeing as i don't belong to any group i'm lost as to what that means. Your classifying people as such i think shows how warped your perceptions of things are: you see everything in black and white, with your opinion on one side, and the most exaggerated and hyperbolic of your opposition's opinion on the other. Unfortunately for you, in real life things are not so simple. What you are doing is a traditional 'straw man' fallacy: i suggest you look it up.

I certainly didn't say any of that, and i think there is a happy medium between 'omg America's gonna die' and thinking that everything's fine and dandy because the deficit was reduced a little over the space of 4 years.

The US is such an economic powerhouse that it can get away with a lot of fiscal irresponsibility; doesn't mean it should be accepted as ok. And it doesn't negate the fact that things have to keep moving in the same direction, and they really need to be moving faster than they are right now.

[Godzuki]

What you wrote means total deficit, when you meant annual deficit. If the deficit was only $680b it would be pretty fine.

You are clueless.


LOL you all are trying your best to make this a bad thing just so you can still be the paranoid internet schizo's you've been here for years. ok i get it now :lol

y'all are more trolls than really caring, its just sad how you all perpetuate the stupidity of America's word of mouth fear mongering to so many.

oh well i tried :confusedshrug:

[Godzuki]

Coming from the person who thinks the US is in a good position economically because it has cut its deficit a bit :roll: .

Some of you? Seeing as i don't belong to any group i'm lost as to what that means. Your classifying people as such i think shows how warped your perceptions of things are: you see everything in black and white, with your opinion on one side, and the most exaggerated and hyperbolic of your opposition's opinion on the other. Unfortunately for you, in real life things are not so simple. What you are doing is a traditional 'straw man' fallacy: i suggest you look it up.

I certainly didn't say any of that, and i think there is a happy medium between 'omg America's gonna die' and thinking that everything's fine and dandy because the deficit was reduced a little over the space of 4 years.

The US is such an economic powerhouse that it can get away with a lot of fiscal irresponsibility; doesn't mean it should be accepted as ok. And it doesn't negate the fact that things have to keep moving in the same direction, and they really need to be moving faster than they are right now.

the problem with a lot of you OTC ISH conspiracy theorists is you don't read or follow shit. You all make up your own realities here which is why i stopped taking any of you seriously a long time ago. Its really like Tea Party people who make up how its fine if we go over the fiscal clifff. Never mind what economists might say, what you see around you and believe means everything, right?

We ARE the economic powerhouse throughout the world. We're the basis of the world economy and affect almost all of their markets which is why they were so pissed about Republicans holding out to pay our debts because it creates world market uncertainty. We have twice the GDP of the second highest country(China) in the world. Do you realize how much of a gap that is and how much above we are?

whatever tho, its not my job to make crazy people sane. I know the internet has a lot of people who only preach and think doom and gloom and its sad to me. i just hoped some of you would/could think with some logic but my bad for taking the higher road for change on ISH OTC .

[HarryCallahan]

You're right op, I'm sooooo terrified of life. China's gonna buy the US. I most certainly have said these things mhmm, mhmm, mhmm.

[Godzuki]

Coming from the person who thinks the US is in a good position economically because it has cut its deficit a bit :roll: .

Some of you? Seeing as i don't belong to any group i'm lost as to what that means. Your classifying people as such i think shows how warped your perceptions of things are: you see everything in black and white, with your opinion on one side, and the most exaggerated and hyperbolic of your opposition's opinion on the other. Unfortunately for you, in real life things are not so simple. What you are doing is a traditional 'straw man' fallacy: i suggest you look it up.

I certainly didn't say any of that, and i think there is a happy medium between 'omg America's gonna die' and thinking that everything's fine and dandy because the deficit was reduced a little over the space of 4 years.

The US is such an economic powerhouse that it can get away with a lot of fiscal irresponsibility; doesn't mean it should be accepted as ok. And it doesn't negate the fact that things have to keep moving in the same direction, and they really need to be moving faster than they are right now.


i read and follow current events more than most of you i think. I think a lot of you here make up your own realities and doom/gloom for the worst.

i understand there is a lot of gray, but i have no problem calling you all out for the black and white you've been completely wrong on , which would have had major repercussions against our country's well being if your doom/gloom got their way.

[Godzuki]

:lol



this ni99a is literally retarded


feel free to explain where i'm wrong. or where our 'annual' GDP will end up thx kid LOL :cheers:

[Godzuki]

lol you have no idea how amused i am of how much some people here still hate me so much from years ago. i guess bitter is a understatement :oldlol:


U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 08:39 PM damn you're an idiot...
U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 08:30 PM Wow, I just realized you're in green rep. Negged for righteousness.~~~Harry
U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 08:24 PM ur dumb as a brick - Uterus
what national chain... 10-30-2013 08:12 PM kfc sucks mah ballz, just like your momma
U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 07:37 PM virgin korean ****** - millwad

[Dresta]

Damn this guy is friggin retarded. I'm done with him. One last thing though:


the problem with a lot of you OTC ISH conspiracy theorists is you don't read or follow shit. You all make up your own realities here which is why i stopped taking any of you seriously a long time ago. Its really like Tea Party people who make up how its fine if we go over the fiscal clifff. Never mind what economists might say, what you see around you and believe means everything, right?

We ARE the economic powerhouse throughout the world. We're the basis of the world economy and affect almost all of their markets which is why they were so pissed about Republicans holding out to pay our debts because it creates world market uncertainty. We have twice the GDP of the second highest country(China) in the world. Do you realize how much of a gap that is and how much above we are?

whatever tho, its not my job to make crazy people sane. I know the internet has a lot of people who only preach and think doom and gloom and its sad to me. i just hoped some of you would/could think with some logic but my bad for taking the higher road for change on ISH OTC .


i read and follow current events more than most of you i think. I think a lot of you here make up your own realities and doom/gloom for the worst.

i understand there is a lot of gray, but i have no problem calling you all out for the black and white you've been completely wrong on , which would have had major repercussions against our country's well being if your doom/gloom got their way.

Who is this 'you' and 'you lot' and 'you all' that you keep rambling about? A lot of the things you keep claiming 'my lot' keep saying, i've never said, ever. So much for your understanding of 'gray' then.

[longhornfan1234]

Not even KevinNYC can save you.:facepalm

[Draz]

Not even KevinNYC can save you.:facepalm
:roll:

[Godzuki]

Damn this guy is friggin retarded. I'm done with him. One last thing though:





Who is this 'you' and 'you lot' and 'you all' that you keep rambling about? A lot of the things you keep claiming 'my lot' keep saying, i've never said, ever. So much for your understanding of 'gray' then.


i'm not far left tho and i'm very middle grounded if anything i'd say. I just think ISH OTC has some of those very stereotypical internet conspiracy theorists who are borderline schizophrenics. They talk in absolutes but are never right about anything, which pretty much sums their beliefs and constant fear mongering here up, which has been going on for years on OTC. Like whenever i read or hear about internet conspiracy theorists i think of ISH OTC, thats how sad i think some people here are tbh. Its funny to me tho how they never own up to being wrong even if they've been wrong so many times with some of the most important decisions our country has made.

I get people hate me here for being immature and shit'ing on them in the past, taking things to real low levels, etc. i'm cool with that and accept it. I just think they're just not very realistic or smart people who follow much. If you can make a reasonable argument where/how i'm wrong, i'd be happy to say you're right, but as far as i'm concerned, i think you and a lot of the ones here who preach the same shit you do are some of the dumbest people on the internet. sorry :confusedshrug:

[millwad]

lol you have no idea how amused i am of how much some people here still hate me so much from years ago. i guess bitter is a understatement :oldlol:


U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 08:39 PM damn you're an idiot...
U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 08:30 PM Wow, I just realized you're in green rep. Negged for righteousness.~~~Harry
U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 08:24 PM ur dumb as a brick - Uterus
what national chain... 10-30-2013 08:12 PM kfc sucks mah ballz, just like your momma
U.S. deficit falls to... 10-30-2013 07:37 PM virgin korean ****** - millwad


Haha, pretty hilarious that our "beef" is still remembered here, I did not give you that rep/neg but hey, you really don't understand economy and the numbers you're trying to use.

[Jameerthefear]

so uh. what does all this junk mean?

[Godzuki]

Haha, pretty hilarious that our "beef" is still remembered here, I did not give you that rep/neg but hey, you really don't understand economy and the numbers you're trying to use.


for the record i didn't think that was you but if it was whatever. trust me when i say i got no beef with you or gobbs for back in the day. but i guess some people really want to see us fight again. i'm not reallly into that these days, i take ISH a lot less seriously than i used to :cheers:

[Dresta]

i'm not far left tho and i'm very middle grounded if anything i'd say. I just think ISH OTC has some of those very stereotypical internet conspiracy theorists who are borderline schizophrenics. They talk in absolutes but are never right about anything, which pretty much sums their beliefs and constant fear mongering here up, which has been going on for years on OTC. Like whenever i read or hear about internet conspiracy theorists i think of ISH OTC, thats how sad i think some people here are tbh. Its funny to me tho how they never own up to being wrong even if they've been wrong so many times with some of the most important decisions our country has made.

I get people hate me here for being immature and shit'ing on them in the past, taking things to real low levels, etc. i'm cool with that and accept it. I just think they're just not very realistic or smart people who follow much. If you can make a reasonable argument where/how i'm wrong, i'd be happy to say you're right, but as far as i'm concerned, i think you and a lot of the ones here who preach the same shit you do are some of the dumbest people on the internet. sorry :confusedshrug:
:roll:

Now who's talking in absolutes?

I still don't know who 'they' are.

And i think you'd struggle to find a single person on here that shares the same collection of political views as i do, let alone a bunch of them. Keep it up with the absolutes buddy :applause:

[Rasheed1]

deficit coming down under a trillion does indeed mean something in the monetary system we currently live under.. There is still plenty of debt, but that is some progress

[millwad]

for the record i didn't think that was you but if it was whatever. trust me when i say i got no beef with you or gobbs for back in the day. but i guess some people really want to see us fight again. i'm not reallly into that these days, i take ISH a lot less seriously than i used to :cheers:


Good, we're on the same page then!

Take care, buddy.

[HarryCallahan]

Godzuki wants some of that Swedish cawk. He'll be picking blonde pubes out of his teeth for months if he gets his way.

[KevinNYC]

so uh. what does all this junk mean?It means the yearly deficit which ballooned to 1.4 trillion dollars in 2009 because of the financial crisis is now less than half that. However, we are not yet back to the levels of the deficit we had before the financial crisis.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/131030164021-fiscal-year-deficits-620xa.png

The last time the deficit fell this fast was right after WWII.

It basically good news (http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/30/news/economy/deficit-2013-treasury/) however you slice it. I suppose some folks will complain they didn't get a pony.


The federal government's latest annual deficit is the smallest it's been since 2008, according to Treasury Department data released Wednesday.
At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

As a percent of the economy, it's also considerably smaller than it's been in the past five years, coming in at 4.1% of gross domestic product. By contrast, the annual deficit in 2009 topped 10% of GDP. And last year it was 6.8%.

The drop in the deficit, is mainly due to higher tax revenues coming in. Also with the housing market recovering, we are getting a lot of money we paid Fannie and Freddie back.

But a recovery in housing has made Fannie (FNMA, Fortune 500) and Freddie (FMCC, Fortune 500) hugely profitable. And those profits flow to the U.S. Treasury.
Fannie Mae received a total of $116 billion in bailout funds. Thursday it reported a $10 billion profit in its most recent quarter, bringing its total repayments to $105 billion.
Freddie Mac received just over $71 billion in bailout funds. With its $5 billion profit reported Wednesday, its repayment will come to $41 billion.
Freddie also said it is getting close to a one-time gain of close to $29 billion later this year, due to how it accounts for some past tax credits. More than $25 billion of that lump sum would be paid to Treasury, which would bring repayments to $66 billion.

[KevinNYC]

The big picture story for the US, is we are not going to have a yearly balanced budget for next 20 years as the bulge of the baby boom generations gets older. And the debt held by the public is expected to look like this.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/10/30/opinion/103013krugman1/103013krugman1-blog480.png

But the other part of the story is that we can afford to service that debt. Our debt is not our biggest problem. Our biggest immediate problem is jobs. The biggest longterm issue is the cost of healthcare.

[gigantes]

to anyone who knows--

how long might the fannie / freddie payback continue and how will the rates be determined? market-based, or some kind of payment schedule, etc?

and will anyone else be joining that process in time? AIG and all those big shots...?


clinton had the budget completely balanced as late as 2000, IIRC.

[KevinNYC]

to anyone who knows--

how long might the fannie / freddie payback continue and how will the rates be determined? market-based, or some kind of payment schedule, etc?

and will anyone else be joining that process in time? AIG and all those big shots...?


clinton had the budget completely balanced as late as 2000, IIRC.
The government basically owns about 80% of Fannie and Freddie, so when they make profits which have been doing quite handsomely this year, the bulk of those profits go to the government. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57585689/how-much-do-fannie-and-freddie-still-owe-us/)

But they still owe us. The question is how much.

There are really two answers.

The short answer is about $65 billion -- Fannie Mae has paid $95 billion of its $117 billion debt, and Freddie Mac has paid $30 billion of its $72 billion debt.

The long answer is that they owe us, and will continue to owe us, all of their profits. That's because through the convoluted agreement struck with the government, the pair agreed that, in exchange for injections of taxpayer money to keep them afloat, they would offer the government premium shares of their companies, paying out 10 percent of their profits in dividends to the Treasury annually. In late 2012 the agreement was amended so that Fannie and Freddie must turn over all profits, regardless of how much or how little, they bring in.

But there's a catch: The profits Fannie and Freddie turn over to the government don't knock out any of their debt.

"What's happening now is a miraculous recovery in the earnings of Fannie and Freddie," says Tim Rood, a former Fannie Mae executive currently with The Collingwood Group, a firm that advises businesses on government-related issues. "While they're paying back the Treasury, there's no provision in the agreement to pay down those debts at all."

In other words, once Fannie has paid $117 billion, and at this rate it could happen within a few years, the company will continue to hand over most of its profit to the Treasury.
So, in fact, the U.S. government stands to potentially make a profit on its massive bailout of the two mortgage giants after they unilaterally failed in the fall of 2008.

[KevinNYC]

Propublica has a bailout tracker. (http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/)

There's a couple of takeaways from all bailouts.
The 700 Billion dollar TARP bill never spent $700 billion, the total cost of all the bailouts including Banks, Auto Companies, AIG, toxic assets, etc was $600 billion and all but $60 billion has been paid back.

The big banks and AIG have paid back their loans. Fannie and Freddie have turned over their profits...even though we still own 80% of their stock. The auto companies still have a fair bit outstanding.


Below is a complete breakdown of the latest numbers in our bailout database. We’re tracking every dollar and every recipient for both the broader $700 billion TARP bill and the separate bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The State of the Bailout
OUTFLOWS: $608 billion
This includes money that has actually been spent, invested, or loaned.


INFLOWS: $555 billion
Money returned and paid to Treasury as interest, dividends, fees or to repurchase their stock warrants.

[DCL]

since 1970, the US has only balanced the budget 4 times (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). those years coincided with one of the greatest bull markets of all time before the tech era popped. all other years were in heavy red. this is not going to change anytime soon, which is an understatement.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

[MMM]

I don't understand the confusion of the first page, why does the op need to differentiate between deficit and annual deficit??? Unless he used to term debt in his original title.

[KevinNYC]

since 1970, the US has only balanced the budget 4 times (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). those years coincided with one of the greatest bull markets of all time before the tech era popped. all other years were in heavy red. this is not going to change anytime soon, which is an understatement.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

The bull market contributed, but the without the deficit reduction act of 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993)there would not have been a surplus. Opponents of the act claimed it would destroy the economy and what followed was the longest economic expansion in US history.

[longhornfan1234]

Propublica has a bailout tracker. (http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/)

There's a couple of takeaways from all bailouts.
The 700 Billion dollar TARP bill never spent $700 billion, the total cost of all the bailouts including Banks, Auto Companies, AIG, toxic assets, etc was $600 billion and all but $60 billion has been paid back.

The big banks and AIG have paid back their loans. Fannie and Freddie have turned over their profits...even though we still own 80% of their stock. The auto companies still have a fair bit outstanding.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131029/AUTO0103/310290032/1148/auto01/Feds-report-9-7B-loss-GM-shares

Feds report 9.78 loss on GM shares.. The poor GM bailout... :lol

[DCL]

The bull market contributed, but the without the deficit reduction act of 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993)there would not have been surplus. Opponents of the act claimed it would destroy the economy and what followed was the longest economic expansion in US history.

get real, kevin. pretty much ALL of the irrational exuberance was from the tech boom.

do you actually think if they passed a budget reconciliation act of 2013 that the country will have surpluses again in 2016 or 2017? :oldlol:

it's not that easy.

[longhornfan1234]

The bull market contributed, but the without the deficit reduction act of 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993)there would not have been surplus. Opponents of the act claimed it would destroy the economy and what followed was the longest economic expansion in US history.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[gigantes]

The government basically owns about 80% of Fannie and Freddie, so when they make profits which have been doing quite handsomely this year, the bulk of those profits go to the government. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57585689/how-much-do-fannie-and-freddie-still-owe-us/)

Propublica has a bailout tracker. (http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/)

There's a couple of takeaways from all bailouts.
The 700 Billion dollar TARP bill never spent $700 billion, the total cost of all the bailouts including Banks, Auto Companies, AIG, toxic assets, etc was $600 billion and all but $60 billion has been paid back.

The big banks and AIG have paid back their loans. Fannie and Freddie have turned over their profits...even though we still own 80% of their stock. The auto companies still have a fair bit outstanding.
holy shit. okay, thank you. :cheers:


so if i understand correctly, the govt made an extremely wise and profitable decision with the bailouts, to say the least. sort of like the FDR thing, i guess. but it doesn't seem like the public is very aware of this. i wonder whose job it is to tell them? :P

and i wonder if a side-effect of this whole deal is that certain big market execs now feel secure that their whole companies get some variety of golden parachute.

also, perhaps for the greedier ones, less pressure to make money through shady means and more inclination for riskier but ethical business practices, like went in to the subprime mortgage debacle.

[KevinNYC]

get real, kevin. pretty much ALL of the irrational exuberance was from the tech boom.

do you actually think if they passed a budget reconciliation act of 2013 that the country will have surpluses again in 2016 or 2017? :oldlol:

it's not that easy.

You either don't know what you are talking about or you misunderstood my point.

Irrational exuberance has nothing to do with tax policy.

The argument was if you raise taxes on the rich, the economy will tank.
[QUOTE]The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."

[longhornfan1234]

to anyone who knows--

how long might the fannie / freddie payback continue and how will the rates be determined? market-based, or some kind of payment schedule, etc?

and will anyone else be joining that process in time? AIG and all those big shots...?


clinton had the budget completely balanced as late as 2000, IIRC.

They should release Fannie Mae and Freddie mac. Its not right to rip off a company like that. All that talk the Democrats did about Romney being a vulture capitalist who chews on the carcasses of corporations was just that all talk. Democrats are doing exactly the same thing to Fannie and Freddie only in a much larger scale than Bain ever did to any company period.

They already gave us enough money as it is. They may need that money later on and they won't have it if we keep feeding on them like vultures. The big banks had a lot more to do with the 2008 crash than Fannie and Freddie.

[DCL]

You either don't know what you are talking about or you misunderstood my point.

Irrational exuberance has nothing to do with tax policy.

The argument was if you raise taxes on the rich, the economy will tank.

This argument was destroyed.

You seem to think I'm implying the deficit reduction act caused the great economy. I was not. Even with the strong economy, we would not have four years of surplus if the tax rates were kept at the 1992 rate.

you're quoting things that i didn't even say. what's the point of doing that? that has no logical sense, kevin.

i told you it's not easy to generate surpluses without a boom. YOU CAN'T just pass some budget act and magically expect a surplus. what fantasy world is this?? :oldlol:

the boom that we had in the 90s was pretty much once in a generation, might even argue it was once in two generations.

without that economic expansion of that magnitude, there's no way of generating surplus with or without a budget deficit act.

you can't just pass a budget deficit act and magically expect the country will be in the surplus. you need a great economic environment in place first. i am not sure why you think it's so easy or possible to get any surplus. it's not.

without the tech boom of the 90s, the US would had seen 43 straight years of budgets in the red since 1970.

[longhornfan1234]

You either don't know what you are talking about or you misunderstood my point.

Irrational exuberance has nothing to do with tax policy.

The argument was if you raise taxes on the rich, the economy will tank.

This argument was destroyed.

You seem to think I'm implying the deficit reduction act caused the great economy. I was not. Even with the strong economy, we would not have four years of surplus if the tax rates were kept at the 1992 rate.
Treasury receipts were flat during '93 post recession expansion. Everyone was expecting a rise. 97's rate reduction on capital gains started a new massive amount of tax revenue to flow into the Treasury.

[gigantes]

They should release Fannie Mae and Freddie mac. Its not right to rip off a company like that. All that talk the Democrats did about Romney being a vulture capitalist who chews on the carcasses of corporations was just that all talk. Democrats are doing exactly the same thing to Fannie and Freddie only in a much larger scale than Bain ever did to any company period.

They already gave us enough money as it is. They may need that money later on and they won't have it if we keep feeding on them like vultures. The big banks had a lot more to do with the 2008 crash than Fannie and Freddie.
i agree, it sounds pretty crazy on the surface of it. i suppose there are mitigating factors since they're mainly govt-owned. but it's hard to believe the govt would levy like this if it meant the inevitable weakening or collapse of fannie / freddie. :confusedshrug:

[KevinNYC]

holy shit. okay, thank you. :cheers:

so if i understand correctly, the govt made an extremely wise and profitable decision with the bailouts, to say the least. sort of like the FDR thing, i guess. but it doesn't seem like the public is very aware of this. i wonder whose job it is to tell them? :P

and i wonder if a side-effect of this whole deal is that certain big market execs now feel secure that their whole companies get some variety of golden parachute.

also, perhaps for the greedier ones, less pressure to make money through shady means and more inclination for riskier but ethical business practices, like went in to the subprime mortgage debacle.

Yeah, it's indeed eye opening. And most people don't understand this. As I read more and more about what was happening in late 2008, there is absolutely no doubt that everything was going to keep unraveling. There was a bank run going on and it wasn't going to stop at Lehman Brothers and AIG. Morgan Stanley, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and other were all very much in danger of going down. The financial markets were frozen and this bnaks that were hundreds of billions of dollars were next in line. TARP stopped this. For all the mistakes Geithner, Bernaeke and Paulson made in the midst of the crisis, nothing stopped the crisis until TARP. The effects on the wider economy and especially unemployment hit in 2009, but in late 2008 the snowball was still racing down the hill and TARP was thing that stopped it, and this trio deserves credit for that.

What was going on was the entire shadow banking system (Where giant companies like GM and GE borrow their money very short term and where money markets fund lend their money. These are 24 hour loans that the keep updating every night) All these companies had real estate assets that were falling in value.....and they had used these assets as collateral to borrow money. Their lenders were saying, those 20 Billion dollars in mortgage-backed securities you gave us as collateral? It's worth 10 billion. You need to come up with another 10 billion in collateral or we are going to pull back our loan tonight. You have 24 hours to ge more cash. So they needed to sell assets to raise more money. And everyone started selling assets at the same time, which drove the price down on all mortgage based securities and other assets. Even if banks had billions in cash on hand it wasn't enough.
The price of assets were spiraling down, which meant they had to sell more to raise money which drove the price down further. They couldn't go to stock market because their stocks were being killed. Short sellers were stepping in. Everyone was going after the next bank in line. Without TARP all the banks were in danger of going under, the piranha were swarming. All a sudden, no matter what their stock price or how much cash they had on had it wasn't enough, if all the creditors were calling in money at the same time and people were selling their stock because they were scared they would be another Lehman. Their assets were toxic at late 2008 prices, they could only make a profit, if they were big enough to hold the assets long term.....and the only entity big enough for that was the federal government and the Fed.
It was a 21st century bank run and it had nothing to do with poor people buying houses they couldn't afford. It was an industry wide mispricing of risk. And the credit markets froze....literally no one wanted to lend money to anyone else, it was a case of total market failure.
So yes, it was a wise decision to step in. As for profitable, that's yet to be seen, you might need to factor in 5 years of interest on that deal.

[KevinNYC]

and i wonder if a side-effect of this whole deal is that certain big market execs now feel secure that their whole companies get some variety of golden parachute.

Yes, this is the Too Big To Fail phenomenon. It would have been a nightmare if AIG failed and we didn't do anything. Some financial entities are so intertwined with the rest of the financial system, if they go bankrupt it's a horror show. One of the issues of the financial crisis, was this are global entities, if you have to force a company into bankruptcy, you have to do before the markets open Monday morning in Japan, or else you're going to have bankrupt company making trades it can't honor. In September 2008, they were literally spending every weekend trying solve failing banks. There teams of bankers and lawyers stuck in conference rooms in lower Manhattan eating take out chinese and no getting any sleep as they poured over financial statements trying to figure out how the big the hole was. They didn't even know AIG was in bad shape until Lehman was already going under. They were all working on trying get Barclay's to buy Lehman Brothers when they realized AIG was in worse shape and someone said, I haven't been to sleep for two days and now I find out we've been working on the wrong problem? This was when they realized they needed TARP, they couldn't do one-off any more, it was the whole system that was unravelling.


The Dodd-Frank reform bill has taken some steps towards solving this. Banks have to pass stress tests, where they see how they hold up in various scenarios, and they need more cash on hand in case things go bad and The FED and other regulators can force them into bankruptcy earlier.....like if Lehman Brothers was taken down in a managed way in spring 2008 instead of Fall where it reached crisis level.....but we still have these systemically risky institutions and it's one of the biggest failures of the past 5 years.

Some one is found of saying, if they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist and need to be broken up into smaller companies.

[Dresta]

since 1970, the US has only balanced the budget 4 times (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). those years coincided with one of the greatest bull markets of all time before the tech era popped. all other years were in heavy red. this is not going to change anytime soon, which is an understatement.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
Any reason why you chose 1970 as your cut off point?

The build up of Keynesian inefficiencies and poor incentives (political asymmetry) made this inevitable, but that doesn't mean it has to persist, or that it is somehow normal and to be expected in any post 1970 economy.

[KevinNYC]

without the tech boom of the 90s, the US would had seen 43 straight years of budgets in the red since 1970.

This is only half right. You need the strong economy + the deficit reduction act to get to the late 90's surpluses.

[DCL]

Any reason why you chose 1970 as your cut off point?

The build up of Keynesian inefficiencies and poor incentives (political asymmetry) made this inevitable, but that doesn't mean it has to persist, or that it is somehow normal and to be expected in any post 1970 economy.

there was a surplus in 1969 and some years prior, but the whole country has pretty much been running deficits for the entire century!

in the past, it was sustainable when production was still growing and the US was still the center of global manufacturing. for the future though, it does not look so good.

[Dresta]

Yes, this is the Too Big To Fail phenomenon. It would have been a nightmare if AIG failed and we didn't do anything. Some financial entities are so intertwined with the rest of the financial system, if they go bankrupt it's a horror show. One of the issues of the financial crisis, was this are global entities, if you have to force a company into bankruptcy, you have to do before the markets open Monday morning in Japan, or else you're going to have bankrupt company making trades it can't honor.

The Dodd-Frank reform bill has taken some steps towards solving this. Banks have to pass stress tests, where they see how they hold up in various scenarios, and they need more cash on hand in case things go bad and The FED and other regulators can force them into bankruptcy earlier.....like if Lehman Brothers was taken down in a managed way in spring 2008 instead of Fall where it reached crisis level.....but we still have these systemically risky institutions and it's one of the biggest failures of the past 5 years.

Some one is found of saying, if they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist and need to be broken up into smaller companies.
Tis true. But size isn't the only problem: the tight coupling and overwhelming complexity of the financial system needs to be dealt with somehow. Otherwise you could still get a domino type effect even if banks were forced to break up.

At the moment it is very hard to tell who is to blame for what, and banks engage in practices that only their own traders can remotely understand. Lehman Brothers had a million derivatives contracts open when it failed, and it was only their own traders that knew how to untangle these deals, and they had to be bribed with huge sums of money to do it. The fallout would have been even worse had this not been managed.

[KevinNYC]

so if i understand correctly, the govt made an extremely wise and profitable decision with the bailouts, to say the least. sort of like the FDR thing, i guess. but it doesn't seem like the public is very aware of this. i wonder whose job it is to tell them?

Yeah, the general public is not aware of the importance and the wisdom of these actions.....and here comes Mr. Dunning Kruger to prove my point.


http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...loss-GM-shares

EDIT: That's on the GM part of the auto bailout. Ally is still underwater

Feds report 9.78 loss on GM shares.. The poor GM bailout...

So for $10 billion dollars we save the US auto industry including Ford (which would have been devasted if GM went under), saved a million or more jobs throughout the Midwest and kept the deficit lower and this guy thinks it's laughable. When the truth is it was a bargain.

I remember several months ago, they were expected a 14.5 billion dollar loss on the GM shares.

[KevinNYC]

Treasury receipts were flat during '93 post recession expansion. Everyone was expecting a rise. 97's rate reduction on capital gains started a new massive amount of tax revenue to flow into the Treasury.
[QUOTE]Where has the federal deficit gone?

When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.

Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.

Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…

For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3

[Dresta]

there was a surplus in 1969 and some years prior, but the whole country has pretty much been running deficits for the entire century!

in the past, it was sustainable when production was still growing and the US was still the center of global manufacturing. for the future though, it does not look so good.
post ww2-1960 was pretty good. I'm also pretty sure most of the twenties ran surpluses also.

This is all Keynes' fault. Spend in the bad time and pay off in the good times he said, not realising that once you start spending and expanding government vested interests start springing up all over the place, and that democratic politicians can't ever be trusted: their life aims are to get as much power or money or both for themselves as possible.


Yeah, the general public is not aware of the importance and the wisdom of these actions.....and here comes Mr. Dunning Kruger to prove my point.

.

So for $10 billion dollars we save the US auto industry including Ford (which would have been devasted if GM went under), saved a million or more jobs throughout the Midwest and kept the deficit lower and this guy thinks it's laughable. When the truth is it was a bargain.

I remember several months ago, they were expected a 14.5 billion dollar loss on the GM shares.
Or it just propped up an inefficient and unsuccessful industry by taking away potential job creation from more successful businesses.

[KevinNYC]

To Add to my point earlier about the 21st century bank run and TARP, confidence in a bank was a giant factor just like in standard bank run. If people were confident, they were going to make their payments, their stock prices stayed high, once that confidence was gone, and short sellers were attacking their stock it became a row of dominoes. Hedge funds that kept billions on dollars with that investment bank wanted to move their money out so as not to get stuck, so once confidence was gone, funding dried up quick.



TARP was the thing that finally restoring confidence in the markets, because the government was going to backstop them.

[KevinNYC]

I think the ProPublica tool is based on this.

The Daily TARP update
www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Documents/Daily%20TARP%20Update%20-%2010.30.2013.pdf

Which if I read this correctly, we lost 13.5 billion on the AIG deal

[gigantes]

mister dunning... XD


okay, thank you very much. i don't / didn't really understand the mechanics of the bailout, moreso that it sounded godamn essential. at the time i couldn't understand the throng of people who were crying bloody murder... as if their righteousness of the moment was more important than their future survival.


hey, if anybody noticed... mister 'he doesn't think for himself, he only knows how to paste in text' just wrote a long analysis of a subject. meep! :D

[KevinNYC]

Or it just propped up an inefficient and unsuccessful industry by taking away potential job creation from more successful businesses.

Nope.

Are you being theoretical or contrary? Because the US auto industry is booming

[Balla_Status]

We had a surplus in the 90s? That's news to me.

Mind telling me what year the total national debt (public debt and intragovernmental holdings) decreased or are we going to continue to perpetuate one of the biggest political lies of all time?

I bet the deficit that ol' mate is talking about is actually more. Extremely biased governmental programs continue to skew the numbers by using crook accounting to make it look better than it really is.

Start of fiscal year 1st October 2013: 16,159,487,013,300.35
End of fiscal year 30th September 2013: 16,747,478,675,335.18

Deficit of 587,991,662,035. It was actually less than the article suggests.

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=09&startDay=30&startYear=2012&endMonth=10&endDay=01&endYear=2013

If you think I'm lying about the 90s, check for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Bring up all the bullshit political words you want but the fact is, if there was a surplus there would've been a decrease in the national debt.

[Godzuki]

deficits are fine, its practically normal in this day in age of world economies. Having a srpls isn't so mch a necessity for economic health. It jst gets scary when it balloons to trillion dollar figres. We pay a very low interest rate on it.

People shold think of it like a gigantic credit card with long term obligations and considering how mch or government brings in its IMO not nearly the doom and gloom that has been fear mongered. At worst i'd say we're too big to fail if yo want to give the doom and gloomers any credence at all with their never ending pessimism of America collapsing at any moment that has gone on for years.

That is not to say we don't need entitlement cts, tax code reworked, military cts, etc. We have way too mch bloat in or government right now.

I'll jst never nderstand those that scream end of the world based on or long term debt at the expense of or crrent economic recovery from near depression levels. I mean the real estate market JST started showing signs of real recovery, stock market had been positive almost every day of 2013 started, nemployment rate has consistently been falling....and all of a sdden the Tea Party right holds America hostage screaming the end of America if we don't pay off long term debt now...with a shtdown where they cost s $21 billion and shake the confidence of world economies reliance on the dollar. The fear mongering never fails to scare the masses it seems which is all the far right does these days, and they're constantly wrong in hindsight.


'_' key broken

[MavsSuperFan]

why is everyone giving the OP so much shit?

This is significant progress that all americans should be ecstatic about.

[Godzuki]

To say other companies wold jst spring p to take the place of the AIG's, FreddieMac, FannieMay, GM, Chrysler, etc. is extremely ignorant. First look at the list of major companies in financial straits, imagine the nemployment rate drop if they went nder. It wold be nlike anything we've seen before and all at the same time. The other factor is the smaller insrance, financial companies hedge their investments and coverages with the larger ones, so in essence they're the backbone for most of the smaller financial/insrance companies to even give yo coverage. So they wold very likely go nder as well. car makers do not spring p overnight which is why there are so few of them in the world.

I mean i'd love for those that say that to say how long it wold take for other companies to take their places. 1 year? 2 years? 3-5 years? 10 years? While we're in a dire economic state where masses are nemployed, which affects everything else? I mean that wold be a real apocalyptic scenario.

That wold have been the biggest blnder of all time America has made if those screaming not to bail ot got their way.

Frthermore we're never going to go back to everything being some small bsiness or medim size company so get sed to 'too big to fail'. there is jst more power and ability to be more efficient in innovation, investment, etc.. with larger company entities. I do agree its all bt impossible to police everything they do, bt at least deterrence with severe penalties pt in place will hopeflly crb that type of behavior, not to mention being pblicly shamed.

[HarryCallahan]

why is everyone giving the OP so much shit?

This is significant progress that all americans should be ecstatic about.

Because OP is a fgt?


Celebratinng .7TRILIOIN$$$ deficits anually is a f@gggy aZs move.

[longhornfan1234]

With the cuts and increase in capital gains tax revenue.... we cut the annual deficit in half, and now the Democrats want to get rid of the cuts....:roll:

[Godzuki]

Because OP is a fgt?


Celebratinng .7TRILIOIN$$$ deficits anually is a f@gggy aZs move.


this is why ISH OTC has some of the biggest doom and gloom retards on the internet ^ :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

We had a surplus in the 90s? That's news to me.

Mind telling me what year the total national debt (public debt and intragovernmental holdings) decreased or are we going to continue to perpetuate one of the biggest political lies of all time?

I bet the deficit that ol' mate is talking about is actually more. Extremely biased governmental programs continue to skew the numbers by using crook accounting to make it look better than it really is.

Start of fiscal year 1st October 2013: 16,159,487,013,300.35
End of fiscal year 30th September 2013: 16,747,478,675,335.18

Deficit of 587,991,662,035. It was actually less than the article suggests.

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=09&startDay=30&startYear=2012&endMonth=10&endDay=01&endYear=2013

If you think I'm lying about the 90s, check for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Bring up all the bullshit political words you want but the fact is, if there was a surplus there would've been a decrease in the national debt.

This is incorrect as every other time you posted it.

Your point that you need large and sustained surpluses to actually bring down the debt is valid though.

[Balla_Status]

Sorry buddy...I know you're a clinton/obama dick rider (and will do everything, even spin facts like you're doing right now, to somehow prove they're right) but I'm right. If there was a surplus, the debt would've decreased. It didn't. That's all there is to it.

I posted a link and you can look it up yourself. If you're still having trouble figuring it out, retake kindergarten math.

[KevinNYC]

Sorry buddy...I know you're a clinton/obama dick rider (and will do everything, even spin facts like you're doing right now, to somehow prove they're right) but I'm right. If there was a surplus, the debt would've decreased. It didn't. That's all there is to it.

I posted a link and you can look it up yourself. If you're still having trouble figuring it out, retake kindergarten math.
It has nothing to do with my politics. This is the same silly semantic game you always play, because you you simply

A. Don't use the accepted definition of a yearly budget surplus. You have your own definition and use different terminology than professional economists of all political stripes. The CBO is non partisan and they clearly state we ran surpluses for four years. Because they know what the defintion is and because we did. It's like arguing with the NFL that a field goal is not 3 points. It's pointless.

http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

B. You also don't seem to understand the timing involved, and don't understand how the cost of prior years affects the total debt. You can make an accurate and nuanced argument that even in years of surplus total debt can increase due to prior year obligations, but you choose not to.

[longhornfan1234]

It has nothing to do with my politics. This is the same silly semantic game you always play, because you you simply

A. Don't use the accepted definition of a yearly budget surplus. You have your own definition and use different terminology than professional economists of all political stripes. The CBO is non partisan and they clearly state we ran surpluses for four years. Because they know what the defintion is and because we did. It's like arguing with the NFL that a field goal is not 3 points. It's pointless.

http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

B. You also don't seem to understand the timing involved, and don't understand how the cost of prior years affects the total debt. You can make an accurate and nuanced argument that even in years of surplus total debt can increase due to prior year obligations, but you choose not to.


I see Kevin is still citing CBO.... :oldlol:

He didn't learn from this thread...
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314605&page=3

[KevinNYC]

I see Kevin is still citing CBO.... :oldlol:

He didn't learn from this thread...
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314605&page=3

What up DK?

I didn't learn from that thread because there was nothing to learn.

[Jailblazers7]

Citing a measurement like the surplus/deficit and citing a forecast are two very different things. One is reliable and one isnt.

[Balla_Status]

It has nothing to do with my politics. This is the same silly semantic game you always play, because you you simply

A. Don't use the accepted definition of a yearly budget surplus. You have your own definition and use different terminology than professional economists of all political stripes. The CBO is non partisan and they clearly state we ran surpluses for four years. Because they know what the defintion is and because we did. It's like arguing with the NFL that a field goal is not 3 points. It's pointless.

http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

B. You also don't seem to understand the timing involved, and don't understand how the cost of prior years affects the total debt. You can make an accurate and nuanced argument that even in years of surplus total debt can increase due to prior year obligations, but you choose not to.

Because it's a bullshit definition. Can a business just not count prior obligations from the years before? Of course not and the government is no exception. The CBO only takes into account debt held by the public and not intragovernmental holdings which is how he made it look like he had a surplus...tons of money going into trust funds like social security, veterans, medicare, medicaid, military etc.

It's a sneaking accounting/bookkeeping trick to make the numbers look better. At the end of the day, the total public debt is what matters and we owe more and more every year and that didn't change in the 90s.

From the factcheck article:
So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

My definition is absolutely correct per fact check. They are only using the "debt held by the public" though and not "total public debt." They are spin doctors as well. Total public debt is what matters. There is no reason to not include intragovernmental debt.

CBO is not non-partisan.

[KevinNYC]

Because it's a bullshit definition.
So point A. above is proven


CBO is not non-partisan.
Explain.

[Balla_Status]

So point A. above is proven


Explain.

Explain why intragovernmental holdings shouldn't be counted. Explain how that is not real debt. How convenient of you to totally dismiss the rest of my post.

If the CBO was non-partisan, they wouldn't have falsely shown a surplus. This obviously favors the clinton/democrat people.

[gigantes]

social scientists agree that anyone who breaks out "intragovernmental" wins any internet argument, regardless of the would-be logical pathways involved. it's just that decisive, mother-fluffer.


so... balla_status... what is your next genius move at this point? could it be the solving of world hunger next...?


this seems like a shot fired around the world... no question there is something very awesome in the works. :cheers:

[KevinNYC]

[QUOTE=Balla_StatusIf the CBO was non-partisan, they wouldn't have falsely shown a surplus. This obviously favors the clinton/democrat people.[/QUOTE]

This is completely flase.

The definition they used is same definition that applied to Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, etc.

Why would Republicans acquiesce to a research group that is biased?

[Blue&Orange]

If the CBO was non-partisan, they wouldn't have falsely shown a surplus. This obviously favors the clinton/democrat people.
What a dumbass. They used the same metrics for everyone. IF it was calculated like you want, there would not have been a surplus, and republican deficits would have been astronomical bad. It's like you said, kindergarten stuff... that you fail at.

[Balla_Status]

The CBO directors are appointed by those in power. There is always opportunity for bias just like judges.

That's really not the point. The point is there was no surplus and the increase in national debt every year proves that.

[longhornfan1234]

What up DK?

I didn't learn from that thread because there was nothing to learn.


Who's DK? I swear you're Jay Carney.

[KevinNYC]

Who's DK? I swear you're Jay Carney.

DK is you.

Also Jay Carney! **** that. I'm at least Robert Gibbs and one day I hope to be the great Dee Dee Myers.

[gigantes]

to be honest, i