US Budget has SURPLUS in january

[JimBob2232]

Yep. Thats right. A SURPLUS.

 

So...spending is up, taxes are down, the economy is in the tank, we are fighting too many wars which are costing us way too much money, and we run a buget surplus. Chew on that one for a while liberals...

 

I cant wait to hear the rationale for this!

[bobblehead]

Yep.  Thats right.  A SURPLUS.

 

So...spending is up, taxes are down, the economy is in the tank, we are fighting too many wars which are costing us way too much money, and we run a buget surplus.  Chew on that one for a while liberals...

 

I cant wait to hear the rationale for this!

600664[/snapback]

 

 

Why only liberals?

[Alaska Darin]

Hey, we found a nickel in a field of crap the size of Alaska and the Fed found it!

 

I'm not sure what I despise more, liberals for their ridiculous beliefs or "conservatives" for pretending their leadership doesn't suck.

[JimBob2232]

I'm not sure what I despise more, liberals for their ridiculous beliefs or "conservatives" for pretending their leadership doesn't suck.

 

We have been down this road before, and I dont think I need to rehash the discussion, except to say that you and I agree on alot of issues. For all Bush's flaws (and lord knows there is alot of them), the two that he has done a good job with, IMO, is the war on terror and cutting taxes.

 

Unfortunatly the first was done with bad evidence, and without a proper plan for keeping the peace and the second was not done in conjunction with a sound fiscal policy.

 

HOWEVER...Im sick of hearing how bad bush's economy is...and I take every chance I can get to dispute this fact. Bush is accused of lying all the time, but how is it democrats keep coming up with reasons bush is bad that are disputed left and right (no pun intended)

 

1) The federal deficit is too large

2) The large deficit is due to cutting taxes

3) The large deficit is due to the poor economy

4) The large deficit is due to increased federal spending

5) The poor economy is bush's fault

6) The stock market is horrible under bush

etc. etc. ANYTHING to blame bush

 

BUT

1) The economy is not bad

2) The stock market is where it was when clinton left office

3) Now, we are running a surplus

 

And I still want a lib who believes this nonsense to explain to me how cutting taxes and increasing federal spending can lead to a budget surplus. I think this little exersise might go a long way toward causing you to realize how things really work and not how the democratic talking points want you to think.

[Kelly the Dog]

I know I am an unabashed liberal, and I really don't like Bush at all, but I must say, this is really great news when I thought our economy sucked. He got us a surplus in January? That's fantastic, and he deserves kudos.

 

And at this rate, I can't fukking wait until January 2011 for the next one!

 

Yeah, yeah, I know. The Treasury always has a surplus every year in January because the corporations and citizens pay their tax dividends.

[Bob Lamb]

Yep.  Thats right.  A SURPLUS.

 

So...spending is up, taxes are down, the economy is in the tank, we are fighting too many wars which are costing us way too much money, and we run a buget surplus.  Chew on that one for a while liberals...

 

I cant wait to hear the rationale for this!

600664[/snapback]

 

 

There is a thing called "Economy of Scale" - look it up

 

What are you measuring against ?

 

I have worked in retail sales for years.

 

The "heads" tell the troops - sales are up/down this week (versus last year)

 

Now, in Buffalo - last January might have been socked in snow emergency for eight days - not a great comparison - but number crunchers do it anyway

 

Now, I work for a large, public company on the NASDAQ. If you project to the Wall Street types that you are going to make $2.40 per share on $1B in sales and end up reporting that you only made $2.33 on $1.1B - the stock takes a temporary dive - (undeserved for those that can actually read financials) but that is the way that market works - and the pros sort out things afterwards.

 

Now the federal government, which (BTW) prints all the money it wants, is running a deficit of gazillions (sic). Their cycle is largely indefinite because a "balanced" budget has the substance of Charmin - 2BL Ply and is projected at least 5 years in advance - why ? - Because they can. Future revenues are a pie in the sky guess. Future expenditures WILL go up

 

So - a January surplus - ? Pretty much a myth - in the big scheme of things.

 

Have you ever gone to a local budget meeting in your town, city, county where they actually have to balance a budget ? It ain't pretty.

 

My little, local city out here in SOCAL is putting up a tax proposition for the November ballot to raise the local sales tax 0.5% to 8.25%. The tax will pay for a City Hall not in trailers with leaky roofs and two badly needed fire stations. California law says we can't do much about property taxes - so sales tax is the major revenue generator.

 

The city's current top tax generator is a Ford car dealership right in the middle of town - what do you think that 0.5% will mean to their revenue ?

 

Whomever said, "All Polictics Is Local" knew the system

[Kelly the Dog]

There is a thing called "Economy of Scale" - look it up

 

What are you measuring against ?

 

I have worked in retail sales for years.

 

The "heads" tell the troops - sales are up/down this week (versus last year)

 

Now, in Buffalo - last January might have been socked in snow emergency for eight days - not a great comparison - but number crunchers do it anyway

 

Now, I work for a large, public company on the NASDAQ.  If you project to the Wall Street types that you are going to make $2.40 per share on $1B in sales and end up reporting that you only made $2.33 on $1.1B - the stock takes a temporary dive - (undeserved for those that can actually read financials) but that is the way that market works - and the pros sort out things afterwards.

 

Now the federal government, which (BTW) prints all the money it wants,  is running a deficit of gazillions (sic). Their cycle is largely indefinite because a "balanced" budget has the substance of Charmin - 2BL Ply and is projected at least 5 years in advance - why ? - Because they can.  Future revenues are a pie in the sky guess.  Future expenditures WILL go up

 

So - a January surplus - ?  Pretty much a myth - in the big scheme of things.

 

Have you ever gone to a local budget meeting in your town, city, county where they actually have to balance a budget ? It ain't pretty.

 

My little, local city out here in SOCAL is putting up a tax proposition for the November ballot to raise the local sales tax 0.5% to 8.25%.  The tax will pay for a City Hall not in trailers with leaky roofs and two badly needed fire stations. California law says we can't do much about property taxes - so sales tax is the major revenue generator.

 

The city's current top tax generator is a Ford car dealership right in the middle of town - what do you think that 0.5% will mean to their revenue ?

 

Whomever said, "All Polictics Is Local" knew the system

600691[/snapback]

 

Blowhard. Why'd you have to go and ruin a perfect good blather from an Aristocrat!

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

There is a thing called "Economy of Scale" - look it up

 

 

 

Whomever said, "All Polictics Is Local" knew the system

600691[/snapback]

 

Tip O'Neil said it, former Speaker of the House and Dem Pol from Massachusetts.

May his sole rest in peace and may his words inspire us.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Yep.  Thats right.  A SURPLUS.

 

So...spending is up, taxes are down, the economy is in the tank, we are fighting too many wars which are costing us way too much money, and we run a buget surplus.  Chew on that one for a while liberals...

 

I cant wait to hear the rationale for this!

600664[/snapback]

 

Another Bush apologist,will probably get the same post in April...this is the same kinda crap Rush Limbaugh spews, probably got it off Matt Drudge's website.

 

 

Thanks Kelly!...

Yeah, yeah, I know. The Treasury always has a surplus every year in January because the corporations and citizens pay their tax dividends.

 

These guys are so predictable its boring, but necessary to respond to the lies and manipulations.

 

"BUT

1) The economy is not bad

2) The stock market is where it was when clinton left office

3) Now, we are running a surplus"

 

Be careful of constructing glass houses, just takes the right sized rock well placed to bring it all crashing down. It is bound to happen sooner or later.

 

As the police establishment in Washington are so often quoted as saying, "not if but when?"

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Yep.  Thats right.  A SURPLUS.

 

So...spending is up, taxes are down, the economy is in the tank, we are fighting too many wars which are costing us way too much money, and we run a buget surplus.  Chew on that one for a while liberals...

 

I cant wait to hear the rationale for this!

600664[/snapback]

 

Man you are pathetic, you did take it off the Drudge report, get a real source of info.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yep.  Thats right.  A SURPLUS.

 

So...spending is up, taxes are down, the economy is in the tank, we are fighting too many wars which are costing us way too much money, and we run a buget surplus.  Chew on that one for a while liberals...

 

I cant wait to hear the rationale for this!

600664[/snapback]

 

Of course, war costs are special approprations outside the budget. So subtract however much we spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, and you'll have a better idea of actual federal expenditures last month.

[JimBob2232]

First of all...its here, a reuters news story

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23

 

Second of all, why, if it appears on drudge, is it wrong?

 

Would a bloomberg story make it more believeable to you?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...id=aYuRPT2vssbU

 

 

As for Bob Lamb, I have no idea where you were taugh economics, but I know where I got my MBA from, and its apparent you are not familiar with the term "economies of scale"...but I'll let that slide.

 

I also know, that my job entails managing the finances of a 350 million dollar budget for the federal government. It is a VERY complicated thing to do, and its not even a measurable portion of the 2.5 trillion dollar federal budget. So yes, balancing the budget is extremely difficult, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to do it.

 

Actually Bob, I have no idea what points you are even trying to make. Goverment can print all the money it wants (as if that solves the problem), Wall street earnings disppointing, sales tax increase affecting a ford plant...Where are you going with all this?

 

Yeah, yeah, I know. The Treasury always has a surplus every year in January because the corporations and citizens pay their tax dividends.

 

So...let me see here. Corporations pay taxes quarterly..so January, April, July, October. So those must all be buget surplus months. People are still paying income taxes in February and March, so those must be surplus months too. So now we are up to 6 months out of the year being "expected" surplus months? Come on. In fact, i dont know the exact numbers, but I would suspect the government pays out more money than it recieves due to personal income tax filings each year. Regardless, the final budget number is completly independant of how much funds are recouped by taxpayers.

 

Be careful of constructing glass houses, just takes the right sized rock well placed to bring it all crashing down. It is bound to happen sooner or later.

 

It very well may. Bush has not been the best president for the economy. I applaud him on cutting taxes. We need to cut taxes WAY MORE. But we have to address the growing problems with outsourcing, trade deficits national debt servicing, and (what I think, is going to really kill us here soon), inflation.

 

IF the economy is a house of cards as you predict, and it comes crashing down, its not because of what bush did, its what he didnt do, which he is equally responsible for.

 

Again, I dont have a problem with people critizing bush. There are 1000 good reasons to do so. But when people jump on the wrong issues and show their ignorance, and make fools out of themselves, thats where I draw the line.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

First of all...its here, a reuters news story

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23

 

Second of all, why, if it appears on drudge, is it wrong?

 

Would a bloomberg story make it more believeable to you?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...id=aYuRPT2vssbU

As for Bob Lamb, I have no idea where you were taugh economics, but I know where I got my MBA from, and its apparent you are not familiar with the term "economies of scale"...but I'll let that slide.

 

I also know, that my job entails managing the finances of a 350 million dollar budget for the federal government.  It is a VERY complicated thing to do, and its not even a measurable portion of the 2.5 trillion dollar federal budget.  So yes, balancing the budget is extremely difficult, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to do it.

 

Actually Bob, I have no idea what points you are even trying to make. Goverment can print all the money it wants (as if that solves the problem), Wall street earnings disppointing, sales tax increase affecting a ford plant...Where are you going with all this?

So...let me see here.  Corporations pay taxes quarterly..so January, April, July, October.  So those must all be buget surplus months.  People are still paying income taxes in February and March, so those must be surplus months too.  So now we are up to 6 months out of the year being "expected" surplus months?  Come on.  In fact, i dont know the exact numbers, but I would suspect the government pays out more money than it recieves due to personal income tax filings each year.  Regardless, the final budget number is completly independant of how much funds are recouped by taxpayers.

It very well may.  Bush has not been the best president for the economy.  I applaud him on cutting taxes.  We need to cut taxes WAY MORE.  But we have to address the growing problems with outsourcing, trade deficits national debt servicing, and (what I think, is going to really kill us here soon), inflation.

 

IF the economy is a house of cards as you predict, and it comes crashing down, its not because of what bush did, its what he didnt do, which he is equally responsible for.

 

Again, I dont have a problem with people critizing bush.  There are 1000 good reasons to do so.  But when people jump on the wrong issues and show their ignorance, and make fools out of themselves, thats where I draw the line.

600712[/snapback]

 

You misunderstand the point of this months receipts being greater the this months layouts. The government as you well know has to balance its revenues against is obligations. In certain months receipts will indeed be higher and typically are in January. Among other months that I am aware of, September, when all spending obligations must be allocated typically dwarfs revenues and any surplus achieved in January and April, aren't you required to make a mid-year progress report of your obligations by the end of June where there is another uptick in governmental costs that put these surplus revenues to shame, even with so much of Iraq spending out of this equation.

 

Must have been a slow news day at reuters and the OMB sent out its typical current budget press release. Still, no context, were those figures better, the same or worse than each of the last couple of years? If a lot better, then maybe you got something going.

[meazza]

And I still want a lib who believes this nonsense to explain to me how cutting taxes and increasing federal spending can lead to a budget surplus. I think this little exersise might go a long way toward causing you to realize how things really work and not how the democratic talking points want you to think.

600685[/snapback]

 

because when you increase fiscal policy, and have a sound gdp targeted monetary policy, even with lower taxes, you create jobs by encouraging investment... which generally leads to more people earning higher income which increases the money you bring in from taxes.

 

the inequality gap though i think is increasing.

 

in general, even though bush has spent billions of dollars, the higher income he has generated from the productive economy has been good.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

And I still want a lib who believes this nonsense to explain to me how cutting taxes and increasing federal spending can lead to a budget surplus. I think this little exersise might go a long way toward causing you to realize how things really work and not how the democratic talking points want you to think.

600685[/snapback]

 

because when you increase fiscal policy, and have a sound gdp targeted monetary policy, even with lower taxes, you create jobs by encouraging investment... which generally leads to more people earning higher income which increases the money you bring in from taxes.

 

the inequality gap though i think is increasing.

 

in general, even though bush has spent billions of dollars, the higher income he has generated from the productive economy has been good.

600757[/snapback]

 

Higher general income does not necessarily result, the great Republican lie.

 

If the tax breaks are geared toward corporations and high tax bracket folks the resulting windfall tends to go towards capital investment, not necessarily bad, but they way they are currently strucutured allowing credits for offshore investments, the tax break probably doesn't generate much U.S. income.

 

However it does in those countries the funds go to, i.e., with capital flight going to Mexico, China etc. Tax breaks for mid-lower income folks tend to increase the velocity of money and therefore act as an income generator within the U.S. creating more wealth through the money multiplier effect of spending.

 

Capital flight actually can remove or better yet move offshore funds with little benefit for the U.S. economy and in the long run, those capital investments come back to haunt us as it negatively effects the trade deficit, once the goods produced from those investments are shipped back to us.

 

So in the long run, the effect these tax breaks have on the treasury and economy can be negative.

[X. Benedict]

Of course, war costs are special approprations outside the budget.  So subtract however much we spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, and you'll have a better idea of actual federal expenditures last month.

600703[/snapback]

I wish I could do my budget like the Federal government. Then half my exenditures wouldn't count towards my "real" budget.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I wish I could do my budget like the Federal government. Then half my exenditures wouldn't count towards my "real" budget.

600876[/snapback]

Even worse, the trade deficit isn't even accounted for. See the lastest NYTIMES article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/business/11trade.html

 

The United States trade deficit widened to a record $726 billion in 2005, the government reported yesterday, adding more fuel to the increasingly partisan debate between advocates of further globalization and those who contend that free trade is causing the loss of too many American manufacturing jobs.

 

So much for that fake surplus.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I personally run a deficit in January and February.

 

On another note... The federal government can't afford pay checks in the agency I work for... Can they send the surplus our way?

 

Really... Foating plant crew has to go to LA just to get paid. Think this "surplus" can stop an impending RIF?

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

I wish I could do my budget like the Federal government. Then half my exenditures wouldn't count towards my "real" budget.

600876[/snapback]

 

So right... I try and I would get busted, end up bouncing a check and suffer fees.

 

They (US) are living "off the float" right now... People in NOLA have to leave their hotel rooms for Mardi Gras... Probably good because even government Visa cards are getting declined... True story... I heard a number of stories where the funds weren't there and people on TDY have been put in a lurch.

 

[VABills]

Not responding to anyone here, but if anyone who actually owns a business or is independant would know, you don;t magically send in your taxes on Jan 1. You are actually required to send them in throughtout the year, based on size of corporation, etc... depends on how often you send them in. Bigger companies it pretty muich goes in with each pay cycle for each employee, along with projected income taxes for the corporation. For individuals and smaller businesses it is quarterly. So there is no magically January windfall. As a matter of FACT, April would probably be a larger month since it is the month when most will file their taxes and pay whatever they still owe from the year prior, plus it is end of quarter so you get the typical quarterly receipts as well.

 

Again, I don't know overall what a surplus means in the grand scheme, but I do know that January is nomore magically then any other single quarterly posting.