Reply With Quote
Whop-t-do...
One month that sees Christmas spending and end of quarter tax stuff.
Hope you don't think its a trend.
...well...for December....
...but still...quarterly surplus...despite Obama
U.S. Posts Record December Surplus on Fannie Mae Payments
Source: Bloomberg
By Kasia Klimasinska - Jan 13, 2014
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-payments.htmlThe U.S. posted a record December budget surplus as higher payroll taxes, payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a declining unemployment rate helped improve the government’s finances.
Revenue exceeded spending by $53.2 billion last month, compared with a $1.19 billion deficit in December 2012, the Treasury Department said today in Washington. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 29 economists was for a $44 billion surplus, the same as the Congressional Budget Office’s prediction.
The 1.2 percentage-points drop in the nation’s jobless rate to 6.7 percent in 2013 was the steepest calendar-year decline since 1983. The strengthening economy and swelling tax revenue cut the country’s deficit as a share of gross domestic product by more than half to $680.3 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 from a record $1.42 trillion in 2009.
“We continue to see economic conditions improve, which is being reflected in the budget deficits continuing to narrow,” said Michael Brown, an economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in Charlotte, North Carolina.
December had increased revenues for a few reasons.
--Increased revenues as people return to work.
--Increased revenues as people paid quarterly tax on realized capital gains
--Increased revenues from Freddie and Fannie (that's a biggie, to be honest: the government as mortgage insurer)
--Increased taxes from the "taxes on the rich" that were allowed to expire a year ago, even though a lot of people seem to insist that they haven't expired (capital gains is still a bit lower, but it also increased)
But a large share of the credit also has to go to the sequester and the elephant the sequester is riding on. It's the Clinton strategy, one that Clinton boasted of even as Obama whines about it, claiming the credit without giving a good reason because it's a better cudgel than it is laurels. The sequester requires a spending reduction. However, the net result of requiring a reduction, even a trivial one like the sequester, is to avoid spending increases. This lets inflation, population growth, and economic expansion catch up to the size of government spending. A result of the obstructionist Congress is that one-off spending bills don't get passed, also holding down spending.....
Whop-t-do...
One month that sees Christmas spending and end of quarter tax stuff.
Hope you don't think its a trend.
But I thought spending wasn't important? This sounds like some Keynesian marxist bull
Spending is important, but we don't see Christmas spending every month.But I thought spending wasn't important? This sounds like some Keynesian marxist bull
The reduction in the deficit is a trend.
the most rapid drop in spending since WWII demmobilization
Not hard when you have one-offs like the stimulus.
the stimulus was puny, and short lived.
what's not puny is the huge loss of federal jobs, the sequester cuts, maybe some "peace dividends", and all other Repug -USA austeristy like up to about $1B from cut from IRS (can't have IRS chasing cash-flush corps tax evaders and wealthy tax evaders), plus Obamacare is beginning to slow spending, too.
Federal Contracts Plunge, Squeezing Private Companies
The big business of Washington — federal contract work — is losing some steam.
After spiraling higher for much of the last decade, the value of federal contracts awarded to companies is falling rapidly.
In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the total fell by $58 billion, or roughly 11 percent. It was the steepest decline — in percentage and nominal terms — in at least a decade, according to an analysis of federal contract data by The New York Times.
The federal government is still awarding hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts. For the 2013 fiscal year, the total was $460 billion. On Wednesday, the House approved a $1.1 trillion spending bill for the current fiscal year, which would include a sizable amount of contracts.
But for many businesses — particularly small ones used to lucrative contract work — the trend is worrying. Even for major corporations like Boeing, the cost of Washington’s budget battles is coming into sharp focus. Few expect contract work to rise broadly in 2014 and many expect the decline to continue, given the politics of the budget.
Small-business owners like Lisa Harris, who runs an environmental consulting firm in Tucson, are feeling the reductions most acutely. As federal contracts have slowed, Ms. Harris said, she has let go half of her 35 workers. The rest have had to take brief furloughs. “I am down to the bare bones,” she said.
The latest decline largely reflects cuts in military spending related to Iraq and Afghanistan, and efforts to squeeze the budget with voluntary cuts and the broad reductions known as sequestration. Contract spending had been declining since President Obama took office, but not as sharply.
The decline during the Obama administration contrasts with the administration of President George W. Bush, when contracts more than doubled after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/16...?from=homepage
People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ges-1978-level
might help make unemployment figures look nice and shiny tbh
Sounds like some Keynesian lib bull . The economy depends on job creators, not spending! Go read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, then come back to me after you've learned something.
lol positive thinkn... = a load of bull
It's a circle. Without spending there will be no job creation needed. Why good are jobs if they don't produce something of value that people can buy?
We've been running a surplus since QE1. Thanks to Bernanke having a spine and doing the right thing. Deficit is down probably 3 trillion by now....well...for December....
...but still...quarterly surplus...despite Obama
U.S. Posts Record December Surplus on Fannie Mae Payments
Source: Bloomberg
By Kasia Klimasinska - Jan 13, 2014
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-payments.html
December had increased revenues for a few reasons.
--Increased revenues as people return to work.
--Increased revenues as people paid quarterly tax on realized capital gains
--Increased revenues from Freddie and Fannie (that's a biggie, to be honest: the government as mortgage insurer)
--Increased taxes from the "taxes on the rich" that were allowed to expire a year ago, even though a lot of people seem to insist that they haven't expired (capital gains is still a bit lower, but it also increased)
But a large share of the credit also has to go to the sequester and the elephant the sequester is riding on. It's the Clinton strategy, one that Clinton boasted of even as Obama whines about it, claiming the credit without giving a good reason because it's a better cudgel than it is laurels. The sequester requires a spending reduction. However, the net result of requiring a reduction, even a trivial one like the sequester, is to avoid spending increases. This lets inflation, population growth, and economic expansion catch up to the size of government spending. A result of the obstructionist Congress is that one-off spending bills don't get passed, also holding down spending.....
Every economist is Keynesian. The monetarists, chicagoans, the Keynesians, all Keynesian.
Either that or stupid ass crazy Ron Paul type lunatics stuck in two centuries ago. But the rest, the rest like science and are Keynesian in one sense or another.
Please explain to me how someone can have a deficit and a surplus at the same time...
The IRS puts people in jail for juggling the books like that.
Simple. We printed the money, spent it, we stopped Bush's collapse, the economy improved. Dumb ass Tealibanis call that a deficit, whatevs.
Your IRS line is mental midgetry so I'm not going to respond to it.
Propaganda.
Quite possibly the biggest brainwashing piece of work to ever come out of the west.
Without the loss of federal workers we would have 4-5 million more private sector jobs right now, average household pay would easily be $4,000 higher, emergency unemployment benefits wouldn't be needed, less would be going onto social security because their raises would encourage a longer working career, we would need 10,000,000 less Obamacare subsidies, and the listed nominal deficit would be four hundred billion lower per anum.
Tealiban hates private sector, loves welfare, and wants the deficit to sink the country, which is why they are firing all the federal workers and making the economy as bad as possible. Thankfully Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke have held the course.
There is this thing called the baby boomer generation. They were this huge swelling of the american population after WW2. They were born between 1945 and 1964 and they are currently ages between ages 49 and 68. The SS minimum age is 67 and is generally denoted as the time when most Americans will retire.
Now lets use some critical thinking skills. Could this in some way be related to the lowering of the participation rate? How do you think this relates to policy?
I just think a declining labor force can make the unemployment rate look better than it is. Disagree?
The largest segment of the population is retiring. This trend will continue for the next fifteen years. The participation rate will be effected by that. I expect you are going to be able to say that the unemployment rate looks 'better' for quite some time to come.
Ms of those baby boomers, polls show CAN'T RETIRE. VRWC stagnated their incomes these last 35 years so they MUST keep working INDEFINITELY to keep their heads above water. Add in Ms of working age people at all income levels, eg the LONG TERM unemployed who can't find work ("50 is the new 60") and quit "participating" in the labor force.
"The SS minimum age is 67" WTF?
"you may start receiving benefits as early as age 62 or as late as age 70.
If You Retire Early
You can retire at any time between age 62 and full retirement age."
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm
If you want to get the full SS benefit then you will retire at 67. You can indeed get lesser payments at age 62. You know this so quit being obtuse.
And I cannot feel particularly sorry for a boomer generation who saw the largest corporate bailout in history to prop up their precious 401k's which were in peril due to policies and debt they were largeley responsible for. Either way 20% of the population is currently on SSA and that will continue to increase as more and more of your ilk retire.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
